Ex Parte Colunga, 587 S.W.2d 426 (Tex. Crim. App. 1979). · Go Syfert
Search
Ex Parte Colunga, 587 S.W.2d 426 (Tex. Crim. App. 1979). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
16 citation events across 3 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Ken Lee Williamson v. State (texapp, 1996-05-22)
Top citers, strongest first. 5 distinct citers.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Ken Lee Williamson v. State (2×)
Tex. App. · 1996 · confidence medium
Kulhanek , 587 S.W.2d at 426.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Clewis v. State (2×)
Tex. Crim. App. · 1996 · confidence medium
App.1978); accord: Ex parte Colunga, 587 S.W.2d 426, at 427, n. 2 (Tex.Cr.App.1979).
discussed Cited "see" Ex Parte Girnus (2×)
Tex. Crim. App. · 1982 · signal: see · confidence high
See Ex parte Colunga, 587 S.W.2d 426 (Tex.Cr.App.1979); Ex parte Reynolds, 588 S.W.2d 900 (Tex.Cr.App.1979); and Ex parte Mixon, 583 S.W.2d 378 (Tex.Cr.App.1979).
discussed Cited "see" Ex Parte Augusta
Tex. Crim. App. · 1982 · signal: see · confidence high
See Ex parte Colunga, 587 S.W.2d 426 (Tex.Cr.App.1979), cert. denied 445 U.S. 920 , 100 S.Ct. 1284 , 63 L.Ed.2d 605 (1980); Ex parte Reynolds, 588 S.W.2d 900 (Tex.Cr.App.1979), cert. denied 445 U.S. 920 , 100 S.Ct. 1284 , 63 L.Ed.2d 605 (1980); and Ex parte Mixon, 583 S.W.2d 378 (Tex.Cr.App.1979), cert. denied 445 U.S. 919 , 100 S.Ct. 1284 , 63 L.Ed.2d 605 (1980).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Foster v. State
Tex. Crim. App. · 1982 · signal: compare · confidence low
Compare, Ex parte Colunga, 587 S.W.2d 426 (1979), where the defendant in Colunga v. State, supra, returned to this Court by way of a post-conviction writ of habeas corpus, and successfully argued that he was entitled to relief pursuant to the dictates of Burks and Greene, supra. .
Ex Parte Ruben COLUNGA
60698.
Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
Oct 10, 1979.
587 S.W.2d 426
John E. Ackerman, Houston, for appellant., Robert Huttash, State’s Atty., Austin, for the State.
Onion, Roberts, Clinton.
Cited by 14 opinions  |  Published

OPINION

ONION, Presiding Judge.

This is a post-conviction habeas corpus proceeding under the provisions of Article 11.07, V.A.C.C.P.

The record reflects that petitioner was convicted of murder and his punishment was assessed at one hundred ninety-nine (199) years’ imprisonment. On appeal the conviction was reversed because of insufficient evidence to corroborate the accomplice witness. On rehearing this court held that upon a finding on appeal that the evidence is insufficient to corroborate the testimony of an accomplice witness the proper disposition is to reverse and remand the cause for a new trial in light of the provisions of Article 44.25, V.A.C.C.P. See Colunga v. State, 481 S.W.2d 866 (Tex.Cr.App.1972).

Petitioner was retried and convicted and again his punishment was assessed at one hundred ninety-nine (199) years’ imprisonment. His conviction was affirmed on appeal. Colunga v. State, 527 S.W.2d 285 (Tex.Cr.App.1975). His claim of double jeopardy was rejected.

Petitioner now urges that in light of the holdings in Burks v. United States, 437 U.S. 1, 98 S.Ct. 2141, 57 L.Ed.2d 1 (1978); Greene v. Massey, 437 U.S. 19, 98 S.Ct. 2151, 57 L.Ed.2d 15 (1978), he is entitled to post-conviction habeas corpus relief. In Burks it was held that the double jeopardy provision of the Fifth Amendment would prevent the retrial of an individual whose conviction had been reversed because of the insufficiency of the evidence to sustain the conviction. Greene makes clear that Burks was applicable to state criminal proceedings by virtue of the Fourteenth Amendment.

The trial court made findings of fact and conclusions of law which support appellant’s contentions. The only question remaining is the retroactivity of the holdings in Burks and Greene. In Minix v. State, 579 S.W.2d 466 (Tex.Cr.App.1979), [1] this court held that Burks and Greene are to be applied retroactively. [2] Petitioner is entitled to the relief he seeks. Petitioner is ordered released from confinement from the Texas Department of Corrections as a result of his conviction for murder.

It is so ordered.

1

. Cf. Robinson v. Neil, 409 U.S. 505, 93 S.Ct. 876, 35 L.Ed.2d 29 (1973).

2

. It is observed that in Johnson v. State, 571 S.W.2d 4 (Tex.Cr.App.1978) (footnote # 2), Ar-tide 44.25, V.A.C.C.P., was held unconstitutional insofar as it was in conflict with Burks and Greene.