Patrick Heaney v. State
Patrick Heaney v. State
Opinion
toyed \ mq. qi~is~ooHlo- c& October 19, 2015
Ttheb £oofcT oF ft?P£AL5
TU. SA*L. ©t Tex its IVp\)<2^t *t c_\*o±*. a]&. bit*!- W- 7jo£2.oL
***•€•
To lite tfowofcifc^Le :5bvnccc oF Ttte: cjdoWC of POTeAu^ \ C«>^efe *oo0>f T<xmJfL \W^e^ ftfpelLJ- p™ &£. a*> i
fc^>e\\fc*r ute» ©a vv>e.ltLA cUttU &>& eye. £ora<ary* (Wwtl*^
( /RECEJVEDN OCT 1 9 2015 I THIRD COURT OF APPEALS/ X pfRFYD.KYLE / \.4 3 hwpJlvfc^ £ec©rA V\e*S M?C <tase^> wufti*_ AuiiwliJoU. 4-o Atestis v .
OJSOfT" t>Ct>t^_<LvCo<^ • HAL \Ue- GDofT cl^cft- VVtfti fs30"T -£^*<vX
W> Wce^ £-<r>-v "flu, ^ktt, "&fl£_ D? TeXA3 «U 1 Hiil\ Gx»/"t>
321. n^^cil<fc«7T c*>i IV. rJOr tftrsX. \L*_ Uqo.t'y -tr>f Pk*ju vwjft. ex.-W^'o°£.
*\Le -tWx h=> 4CLfc frff-elltf^T^ tflo"H<o<* -tor £<Jw-**rvV** *w * brU.-r by 4UV-tv Q^e>J A»w^* >/X> $,<L~ Ofrsvaoe^ "£>eu,kC<vno;* X , *ZXiJk \W<s.y, Tbc5*A>». ^wen&l?, U*'*j ^rc^\{^ la- ^fcbwi^aoez- uwT i.*> ^SJtAfi- Goo-v^y Tcx**j destLy 0^ i cL»cIa-/-£- U^«Lr ^c^a\4^ af "^erw>ry 4^-t- 'TU* ^ortAo^ U Tfcoe: ,wi Co££&T' EtfeciAei ^ ^Vl> V^~ cLy oi OcrWUr b "^ y^ ^o(r.
©(- iU. Tft#«i> C^ij ^TvUklr A4tt^e.jrr ^.o.&e* VWg, Cus^> Tejc*> nftUT ^?U^L \W>^ t ifo Sc
»I.-v (5"^ *-«\c ^r^^i n 3d J^- DckU^i^^^^is^: Coo t\ o[_^J^^£aX^ r CL^f- ^_JD3r li^QPif20 iCjL-
yo->- >jq*^ ^y—***___ CX^C(2<tJ-'
Sii^—_)6b«**3»^- .^_jl^_v_ -tSzJT' ^£ - » ^H (/ ^ r.
af^5 r
-J M ,.c V Q T <p°-i <c-
* t— _r > =- 7s'
| _1 J: -^
i ^ •5: VA
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.