Rodriguez v. State
Decision Date | 15 May 1991 |
Docket Number | No. 003-90,003-90 |
Citation | 808 S.W.2d 496 |
Parties | Francisco RODRIGUEZ, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee. |
Court | Texas Court of Criminal Appeals |
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-
Fonseca v. State
...(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
...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
...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
...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 ......