Shaw v. State, 761 S.W.2d 9 (Tex. Crim. App. 1988). · Go Syfert
Search
Shaw v. State, 761 S.W.2d 9 (Tex. Crim. App. 1988). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
2 citation events across 1 distinct court.
Strongest positive: Arnold v. State (texcrimapp, 1990-01-24)
Top citers, strongest first. 1 distinct citer. How cited ↗
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Arnold v. State (2×)
Tex. Crim. App. · 1990 · signal: see also · confidence low
See, e.g., Johnson v. State, 768 S.W.2d 788 (Tex.App.—Dallas 1989) (reversed) PDR refused; Hartley v. State, 765 S.W.2d 883 (Tex.App.—Dallas 1989) (affirmed) PDR refused; see also Shaw v. State (Tex.App.—Fort Worth Nos. 2-86-036-CR & 2-86-073-CR, delivered April 27, 1989) (reversed) PDR pending, on remand of Shaw v. State, 729 S.W.2d 134 (Tex.App. —Fort Worth 1987), per Shaw v. State, 761 S.W.2d 9 (Tex.Cr.App.1988). [18] We observe, *309 however, that feature seems to be dismissed as having no particular bearing on the outcome.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Barry Wayne SHAW
v.
The STATE of Texas
No. 0600-87.
Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
Nov 9, 1988.
761 S.W.2d 9
Allan K. Butcher, Fort Worth, for appellant., Tim Curry, Dist. Atty. and C. Chris Marshall and David L. Richards, Asst. Dist. Attys., Fort Worth, Robert Huttash, State’s Atty., Austin, for the State.
Cited by 2 opinions  |  Published

OPINION ON APPELLANT’S PETITION FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW

PER CURIAM.

Appeal is taken from a conviction for the offense of Murder. After finding appellant guilty, the jury assessed punishment at 44 years confinement in the Texas Department of Corrections.

On direct appeal, Appellant argued the trial court erred in instructing the jury on the law concerning good time and parole, inasmuch as the charge is predicated upon an unconstitutional statute. The Court of Appeals rejected appellant’s challenge to Article 37.07, Sec. 4, V.A.C.C.P. Shaw v. State, 729 S.W.2d 134 (Tex.App. — Fort Worth 1987).

In his petition for discretionary review, Appellant urges the Court of Appeals erred in holding Article 37.07, Sec. 4, supra, is constitutional. We find appellant is correct.

In Rose v. State, 752 S.W.2d 529 (Tex.Crim.App.1988), this Court determined that Article 37.07, Sec. 4, is unconstitutional. Under Rose, supra, it is still necessary for the Court of Appeals to conduct a harmless error analysis under the guidelines of Tex. R.App.P. 81(b)(2).

The judgment of the Court of Appeals is vacated, and this cause is remanded to that Court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.