Case Name: Carl RAETZSCH, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee
Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1987-07-01
Citations: 733 S.W.2d 224
Docket Number: No. 838-86
Parties: Carl RAETZSCH, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee.
Judges: 
Reporter: South Western Reporter Second Series
Volume: 733
Pages: 224–224

Head Matter:
Carl RAETZSCH, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee.
No. 838-86.
Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, En Banc.
July 1, 1987.
Carl W. Raetzsch, III, pro se.
Grant Jones, Dist. Atty., Corpus Christi, Robert Huttash, State’s Atty., Austin, for the State.

Opinion:
OPINION ON APPELLANT'S PETITION FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW
PER CURIAM.
Appellant was convicted by a jury of burglary of a building. Punishment was assessed by the same jury at 26 years in the Texas Department of Corrections and a $10,000.00 fine. On appeal the Corpus Christi Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction. Raetzsch v. State, 709 S.W.2d 39 (Tx.App. — Corpus Christi 1986).
The appellant raises five grounds for review. We agree with the Court of Appeals that affirmance is warranted. However, as is true in every case where discretionary review is refused, this refusal does not constitute endorsement or adoption of the language or reasoning employed by the Court of Appeals. Sheffield v. State, 650 S.W.2d 813 (Tex.Cr.App.1983).
With this understanding, we refuse the appellant's petition for discretionary review.