Case Name: Milton CLAY, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee
Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1987-02-04
Citations: 724 S.W.2d 58
Docket Number: No. 272-86
Parties: Milton CLAY, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee.
Judges: 
Reporter: South Western Reporter Second Series
Volume: 724
Pages: 58–58

Head Matter:
Milton CLAY, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee.
No. 272-86.
Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, En Banc.
Feb. 4, 1987.
George W. Baugh, San Antonio, for appellant.
Sam D. Millsap, Jr., Dist. Atty. and Karen Amos, Emil Holiner and Daniel Thomberry, Asst. Dist. Attys., San Antonio, Robert Huttash, State’s Atty., Austin, for the State.

Opinion:
OPINION
WHITE, Judge.
Appellant was convicted by a jury of aggravated robbery. Punishment was assessed by the trial court at 15 years in the Texas Department of Corrections. On appeal the San Antonio Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction. Clay v. State, 702 S.W.2d 747 (Tex.App.—San Antonio 1985).
Appellant raises three grounds for review. We agree with the Court of Appeals that none require reversal. However, as is true in every case where discretionary review is refused, this refusal does not constitute endorsement or adoption of the reasoning employed by the Court of Appeals. Sheffield v. State, 650 S.W.2d 813 (Tex.Cr.App.1983).
With this understanding, we refuse appellant's petition for discretionary review.