Court Opinion

ID: 9774227
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 18:11:58.410516+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:32:03.819433
License: Public Domain

OPINION ON STATE’S PETITION FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW
MILLER, Judge.
Appellant’s conviction for aggravated robbery was reversed by the Court of Ap*743peals. Cockerham v. State, 703 S.W.2d 334 (Tex.App.-Corpus Christi 1985). The Court of Appeals ruled that the prosecutor’s indirect comment on appellant’s failure to testify was both improper and harmful under Art. 38.08, V.A.C.C.P.
We granted the State’s petition for discretionary review to examine the correctness of this holding. Upon careful review of the briefs of the respective parties and of the Court of Appeals’ opinion, we find that the decision of the Court of Appeals is correct and does not merit further review by this Court. The State’s petition for discretionary review is therefore dismissed as improvidently granted, pursuant to Tex. R.App. Pro. Rule 202(k).  Michalenko v. State, 678 S.W.2d 75 (Tex.Cr.App.1984); Pruitt v. State, 678 S.W.2d 76 (Tex.Cr.App.1984).