From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Munoz v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, En Banc
May 29, 1991
809 S.W.2d 501 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991)

Opinion

Nos. 333-91 to 335-91.

May 29, 1991.

Appeal from the 185th Judicial District Court, Harris County; Carl Walker, Jr., Judge.

Renato Santos, Jr., Houston, for appellant.

John B. Holmes, Jr., Dist. Atty., Timothy G. Taft and Lorraine Parker, Asst. Dist. Attys., Houston, and Robert Huttash, State's Atty., Austin, for the State.

Before the Court en banc.


OPINION


In a single trial, a jury convicted appellant of three separate offenses against three separate victims, attempted sexual assault and two aggravated sexual assaults. The jury assessed punishment at confinement for life for each of the aggravated sexual assault cases. The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction. Munoz v. State, 803 S.W.2d 755 (Tex.App. — Houston [14th] 1991).

Appellant raises two grounds for review. However, 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 appellant's petition for discretionary review.

MALONEY, J., would grant.


Summaries of

Munoz v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, En Banc
May 29, 1991
809 S.W.2d 501 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991)
Case details for

Munoz v. State

Case Details

Full title:Arnoldo Ricardo MUNOZ, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee

Court:Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, En Banc

Date published: May 29, 1991

Citations

809 S.W.2d 501 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991)

Citing Cases

Monroe v. State

We recognize that the appeals court in Munoz v. State faced a similar issue on the inference of extraneous…

Holland v. State

Instead, we follow the lead of the Houston, San Antonio, and Beaumont courts in holding that extraneous…