From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Young v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, En Banc
Oct 3, 1990
796 S.W.2d 195 (Tex. Crim. App. 1990)

Opinion

No. 865-88.

October 3, 1990.

Appeal from 297th Judicial District, Tarrant County; Earl E. Bates, Jr., J.

Allan K. Butcher, Fort Worth, for appellant.

Tim Curry, Dist. Atty., and C. Chris Marshall, David K. Chapman, Loretta Stauffer, Robert Bush and Danny Price, Asst. Dist. Attys., Fort Worth, Robert Huttash, State's Atty., Austin, for the State.

Before the court en banc.

OPINION ON STATE'S PETITION FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW


A jury convicted appellant, Johnny Otis Young, of aggravated robbery. After it found two enhancement paragraphs to be true, the jury assessed a sentence of life imprisonment. The Fort Worth Court of Appeals reversed the conviction finding that the trial court had erred in proceeding to trial after appellant had been reindicted but before appellant's attorney was afforded the then statutory ten days time in which to prepare. See Act of June 18, 1965, ch. 722, sec. 1, Tex.Sess.Laws Serv. 425 (codified as Article 26.04 (b), V.A.C.C.P.), amended by Act of June 19, 1987, ch. 979, sec. 2, Tex.Sess.Laws Serv. 3322 (eliminating the ten day provision). Moreover, the Court of Appeals held that such error was not subject to a harm analysis. Young v. State, 752 S.W.2d 235 (Tex.App. — Fort Worth 1988). We granted the State's petition for discretionary review to determine if the harmless error rule, Tex.R.App.P 81(b)(2), is applicable to this type of error.

After granting the State's petition, this Court decided Sodipo v. State (Tex.Cr.App. No. 1390-88, delivered September 12, 1990). (rehearing granted). In Sodipo we held that "the ten day requirement found in Art. 28.10(a) cannot be subject to a harm analysis in any meaningful manner, because the record will not reveal any concrete data from which an appellate court can meaningfully gauge or quantify the effect of the error." slip op. at p. 5. Consequently, we affirm the Court of Appeals' holding in the case before us.

BERCHELMANN and STURNS, JJ, not participating.


Summaries of

Young v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, En Banc
Oct 3, 1990
796 S.W.2d 195 (Tex. Crim. App. 1990)
Case details for

Young v. State

Case Details

Full title:Johnny Otis YOUNG, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee

Court:Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, En Banc

Date published: Oct 3, 1990

Citations

796 S.W.2d 195 (Tex. Crim. App. 1990)

Citing Cases

Marin v. State

We hold that it does. In both Sodipo v. State, No. 1390-88 (Tex.Cr.App., September 12, 1990) (not yet…

Sprayberry v. State

Similarly, the court of criminal appeals, this court, and a sister court have held that the additional time…