Nichols v. State
| Decision Date | 18 September 1991 |
| Docket Number | No. 763-91,763-91 |
| Citation | 815 S.W.2d 732 |
| Parties | John Nathan NICHOLS, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee. |
| Court | Texas Court of Criminal Appeals |
Appellant was convicted by a jury of murder and sentenced to life imprisonment. In his first point of error on appeal, appellant complained of the trial court's failure to make specific findings of facts and conclusions of law as to the voluntariness of appellant's confession. The Court of Appeals sustained this point of error, reversed the judgment after the trial court failed to substantially comply with an order from the appellate court, and remanded the cause to the trial court. Nichols v. State, 810 S.W.2d 829 (Tex.App.--Dallas, 1991). The State has filed a petition for discretionary review and this Court has declined to grant review.
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 the State's petition for discretionary review.
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Pena-Mota v. State
-
Hernandez v. State
...findings on that issue. The Dallas court of appeals abated the appeal and remanded the case to the trial court to make the findings. Id. at 831-32. But the court only sent the same conclusions with no specific findings as requested by the court of appeals. Id. at 833. Reasoning that the cas......
- Isham v. State
-
Owen v. State
...findings of fact, and that the findings made do not support the conclusion that the statements were admissible. Citing Nichols v. State, 810 S.W.2d 829 (Tex.App.--Dallas), pet. ref'd, 815 S.W.2d 732 (Tex.Crim.App.1991), she says that the findings are wholly inadequate and that the judgment ......