Rodriguez v. State

Decision Date15 May 1991
Docket NumberNo. 003-90,003-90
Citation808 S.W.2d 496
PartiesFrancisco RODRIGUEZ, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee.
CourtTexas Court of Criminal Appeals
OPINION

CAMPBELL, Judge.

An Hidalgo County jury found appellant, Francisco Rodriguez, guilty of aggravated robbery. Tex. Penal Code § 29.03(a)(2). Punishment, enhanced by one prior felony conviction, was assessed by the jury at imprisonment for 25 years. On appeal, appellant contended the trial court erred in including the parole law instruction in the jury charge. 1 The Thirteenth Court of Appeals agreed and remanded the cause to the trial court for reassessment of punishment under Tex.Crim.Proc.Code art. 44.29(b). Rodriguez v. State, 745 S.W.2d 572 (Tex.App.--Corpus Christi 1988, pet. ref'd). On remand, the trial court assessed appellant's punishment at imprisonment for twelve years. Appellant then appealed a second time, contending that Article 44.29(b), as applied to him, 2 was unconstitutionally retroactive and ex post facto. The court of appeals disagreed. Rodriguez v. State, 779 S.W.2d 884 (Tex.App.--Corpus Christi 1989). We granted appellant's petition for discretionary review, pursuant to Tex.R.App.Proc. 200(c)(1), in order to consider the correctness of the court of appeals' decision.

The question of the validity of Article 44.29(b) under our state and federal constitutional ex post facto and retroactive legislation clauses was decided adversely to appellant in Grimes v. State, 807 S.W.2d 582 (Tex.Cr.App.1991).

The judgment of the court of appeals is affirmed.

BENAVIDES, J., not participating.

To continue reading

Request your trial
7 cases
  • Fonseca v. State
    • United States
    • Texas Court of Appeals
    • 14 July 1994
    ...(applied Almanza harm analysis), appeal after remand on other grounds, 779 S.W.2d 884 (Tex.App.--Corpus Christi 1989), aff'd, 808 S.W.2d 496 (Tex.Crim.App.1991). We must, therefore, determine whether the error did not contribute to the punishment beyond a reasonable doubt and look to factor......
  • Lookingbill v. State
    • United States
    • Texas Court of Appeals
    • 29 April 1993
    ...point of error, appellant waives this point. Rodriguez v. State, 779 S.W.2d 884, 886 (Tex.App.--Corpus Christi 1989), aff'd, 808 S.W.2d 496 (Tex.Crim.App.1991). We overrule appellant's fourth point of By his sixth through tenth points of error, appellant complains that the trial court erred......
  • Tidrow v. State
    • United States
    • Texas Court of Appeals
    • 1 February 1996
    ...has been held a waiver of the related point. Rodriguez v. State, 779 S.W.2d 884, 886 (Tex.App.--Corpus Christi 1989), aff'd, 808 S.W.2d 496 (Tex.Crim.App.1991). Nevertheless, because Tidrow's brief mentions the statement of facts page which contains his hearsay objection, we will accept tha......
  • State v. Cannady, 13-95-141-CR
    • United States
    • Texas Court of Appeals
    • 4 January 1996
    ...28, 101 S.Ct. 960, 964, 67 L.Ed.2d 17 (1981); Rodriguez v. State, 779 S.W.2d 884, 885 (Tex.App.--Corpus Christi 1989), aff'd, 808 S.W.2d 496 (Tex.Crim.App.1991). This prohibition seeks to assure that legislative acts give fair warning of their effect and permit individuals to rely on their ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT