Case Name: The STATE of Texas, Appellee, v. Aurelio FLORES, Appellant
Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1996-12-18
Citations: 940 S.W.2d 660
Docket Number: No. 773-96
Parties: The STATE of Texas, Appellee, v. Aurelio FLORES, Appellant.
Judges: Before the court en banc.
Reporter: South Western Reporter Second Series
Volume: 940
Pages: 660–661

Head Matter:
The STATE of Texas, Appellee, v. Aurelio FLORES, Appellant.
No. 773-96.
Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, En Banc.
Dec. 18, 1996.
Mark Stevens, San Antonio, for appellant.
Alan E. Battaglia, Asst. Dist. Atty., San Antonio, Matthew Paul, State’s Atty., Austin, for State.
Before the court en banc.

Opinion:
OPINION ON THE APPELLANT'S PETITION FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW
PER CURIAM.
Appellant was convicted of capital murder and sentenced to confinement for life. The Court of Appeals affirmed. Flores v. State, 920 S.W.2d 347 (Tex.App.—San Antonio 1996). We granted appellant's petition for discretionary review to determine whether the Court of Appeals correctly addressed appellant's point of error contending the trial judge erred in denying a proper question on voir dire.
After careful review of the appellate record, the Court of Appeals' opinion, as well as the briefs and oral argument before this Court, we conclude that our decision to grant review was improvident. Accordingly, the petition for discretionary review is dismissed. Tex.R.App.Pro. 202(k). As is true with every case where discretionary review is dismissed, the dismissal does not constitute endorsement or adoption of the reasoning employed by the Court of Appeals. Bidelspach v. State, 850 S.W.2d 188 (Tex.Cr.App.1993).
KELLER, J., concurs in the result.
WHITE, J., not participating.