Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 2002

Edwards v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · Decided January 30, 2002 · Womack

67 S.W.3d 228; 2002 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 14; 2002 WL 123578 (South Western Reporter, Third Series)

Cases that cite this one

25 later published cases cite this decision.

John Andrew Garcia v. State (Tex. App. 2015)
Alan Ray Rogers v. State (Tex. App. 2002)
Christopher James Starks v. State (Tex. App. 2012)
Broderick Keith Lewis v. State (Tex. App. 2012)
Wilkerson v. State (Tex. App. 2011)
Kevin Mitchell Wyatt v. State (Tex. App. 2011)
Terry Don Wilkerson v. State (Tex. App. 2011)
George Valentino Brent v. State (Tex. App. 2011)
Victor Alejandro Garcia v. State (Tex. App. 2007)
Brown v. State (Tex. App. 2006)
Robert Anthony Brown v. State (Tex. App. 2006)
Raul Chavez-Cornejo v. State (Tex. App. 2006)
Robert Anthony Brown v. State (Tex. App. 2006)
Davis v. State (Tex. App. 2005)
Terrell Kinyon Davis v. State (Tex. App. 2005)
Eddie De La Rosa v. State (Tex. App. 2005)
Mosley, Kasy Lee v. State (Tex. App. 2005)
Buster v. State (Tex. App. 2004)
Larry Everette White v. State (Tex. App. 2004)
Joe Lee Buster v. State (Tex. App. 2004)
Irma Luna v. State (Tex. App. 2003)
Johnson, Raymond Lee v. State (Tex. App. 2003)
Danny Earl Moore v. State (Tex. App. 2002)
Stroud, William Timothy v. State (Tex. App. 2002)
Patrick Lamont Dean v. State (Tex. App. 2002)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion of the Court

OPINION

The opinion was delivered

PER CURIAM.

Appellant was convicted of aggravated robbery. During the punishment phase, the trial court submitted the mandatory jury instruction under Article 37.07, § 4(a), concerning the parole laws and the existence of good conduct time. No objection was made to this charge. The jury convicted appellant and assessed punishment at twenty years in prison. The Fourteenth Court of Appeals affirmed, rejecting appellant’s assertion that the jury charge is unconstitutional as applied to him.1 Appellant now complains, as he did below, that the charge violated his rights to Due Process of Law under the United *229States Constitution and Due Course of Law under the Texas Constitution.

Having examined the record and considered the arguments in the case, we conclude that our decision to grant review was improvident. Appellant’s petition for discretionary review is dismissed.

WOMACK, J., concurred in the judgment.

. Edwards v. State, 10 S.W.3d 699, 705 (Tex. App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 1999).

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.