Court Opinion

ID: 9777714
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 20:21:19.322584+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:33:00.272918
License: Public Domain

OPINION ON APPELLANT’S PETITION FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW

PER CURIAM.
Appellant was convicted by a jury of the offense of murder. He was sentenced to life imprisonment and assessed a fine of $10,-000.00. The Texarkana Court of Appeals sustained appellant’s claim of charging error and reversed and remanded the case. Reich-Bacot v. State, 914 S.W.2d 666 (Tex.App.— Texarkana 1996). The State filed a petition for discretionary review, which was granted by this Court. This Court remanded the case to the Court of Appeals to conduct a harm analysis pursuant to Almanza v. State, 686 S.W.2d 157 (Tex.Cr.App.1984). Reichr-Bacot v. State, 936 S.W.2d 961 (Tex.Cr.App. 1996). On first remand, the Court of Appeals held that appellant was not harmed by the charging error. Reichr-Bacot v. State, 941 S.W.2d 380 (Tex.App. — Texarkana 1997). Appellant filed a petition for discretionary review, which was granted by this Court. This Court remanded the case, to the Court of Appeals with instructions to allow appellant to file a brief on remand. Reichr-Bacot v. State, 952 S.W.2d 542 (Tex.Cr.App.1997). On second remand, appellant and the State briefed the issue of harm, and the Court of Appeals again held that appellant suffered no harm due to any charging error. Reichr-Bacot v. State, 957 S.W.2d 892 (Tex.App.— Texarkana 1997, pet. granted).
We granted discretionary review on one ground. We decide our decision to grant discretionary review was improvident. Therefore, we dismiss appellant’s petition for discretionary review.
BAIRD, J., dissents for the reasons stated in the dissenting opinion in Ex Parte Ramirez, 919 S.W.2d 435, 436 (Tex.Cr.App. 1996), and Houston v. State, 846 S.W.2d 848 (Tex.Cr.App.1993).
OVERSTREET, J., dissents.