Baird v. State, 455 S.W.2d 259 (Tex. Crim. App. 1970). · Go Syfert
Search
Baird v. State, 455 S.W.2d 259 (Tex. Crim. App. 1970). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
24 citation events (21 in the last 25 years) across 3 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Bobby Trevino v. the State of Texas (texapp, 2024-11-27)
Treatment trajectory · 1984 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1984 2005 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 6 distinct citers. How cited ↗
cited Cited as authority (rule) Bobby Trevino v. the State of Texas
Tex. App. · 2024 · confidence medium
App. 1984); Baird v. State, 455 S.W.2d 259, 259 (Tex. Crim.
cited Cited as authority (rule) Joseph Weaver v. the State of Texas
Tex. App. · 2022 · confidence medium
Baird v. State, 455 S.W.2d 259, 259 (Tex. Crim.
cited Cited as authority (rule) Johnny Lee Evans, Sr. v. the State of Texas
Tex. App. · 2022 · confidence medium
App. 1984); Baird v. State, 455 S.W.2d 259, 259 (Tex. Crim.
cited Cited as authority (rule) Quintana v. State
Tex. App. · 1989 · confidence medium
See Stevens, 667 S.W.2d at 538 ; Baird, 455 S.W.2d at 259.
cited Cited "see" Reid, James
Tex. · 2015 · signal: see · confidence high
See Baird v. State, 455 S.W.2d 259, 259 (Tex. Crim.
cited Cited "see, e.g." Adams, Alex v. State
Tex. App. · 2004 · signal: see also · confidence medium
App. 1984); see also Baird v. State , 455 S.W.2d 259, 259 (Tex. Crim.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Jerry Wayne BAIRD, Appellant,
v.
the STATE of Texas, Appellee
42955.
Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
Jun 17, 1970.
455 S.W.2d 259
Nathan O. Newman, II, Abilene, for appellant., Emory C. Walton, Dist. Atty., Eastland, and Jim D. Vollers, State’s Atty., Austin, for the State.
Morrison.
Cited by 21 opinions  |  Published

OPINION

MORRISON, Judge.

The offense is escape from jail by the use of a firearm; the punishment, 12 years.

The sole question presented is the power of the trial court to cumulate the sentence in this cause with the sentence in a prior conviction rendered against this appellant in the same court. It is appellant’s contention, not supported by authority, that this constitutes cruel and unusual punishment. Though persuasive, appellant’s argument runs in the face of the statute authorizing cumulation of sentences [1] and cannot be sustained.

Other than the above, appellant’s counsel admits that there are no further grounds of error that can be urged. We have examined the record with care and agree with counsel that there are no other errors which he could raise.

Finding no reversible error, the judgment is affirmed.

1

. Article 42.08, Vernon’s Ann.C.C.P.