Baker's Legal Pages are a public service of Freelance Enterprises, Inc.
Casenotes Listing Table of Recent Opinions
Send your comments or suggestions to fei@bakers-legal-pages.com
© 2003 Lang Baker

This information is made available as a free public service for your personal, non-commercial use. While every effort has been made to provide accurate material at this site, it is provided "as is" and no representations are made that it is free of mistakes or inaccuracies. This file was derived from the text posted on the web site of the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, by the automatic operation of conversion software, and may contain errors.

A D V E R T I S E M E N T S Baker's Legal Pages has no relationship with the advertisers whose ads appear below.

Turner v State

October 22, 2003
No. PD-1932-01


IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

OF TEXAS

NO. 1932-01

MARCUS TURNER, Appellant

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS

ON STATE’S PETITION FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW

FROM THE SECOND COURT OF APPEALS

TARRANT COUNTY

Meyers, J., delivered the opinion of the Court in which Keller, P.J., Price, Womack, Johnson, Keasler, Hervey, and Holcomb, J.J., joined. Cochran, J., not participating.

O P I N I O N

A jury convicted appellant Marcus Turner of capital murder and sentenced him to life in prison for his part in a robbery-murder. Tex. Pen. Code §19.03. On appeal, Appellant argued that he received ineffective assistance of counsel during the pretrial plea bargaining process and the Court of Appeals reversed his conviction. Turner v. State, 49 S.W.3d 461 (Tex. App. - Fort Worth 2001). The State petitioned this Court, enumerating four grounds for review. We granted review to address two of those grounds:

1. “Does the court of appeals’ opinion usurp the role of the trial court by insisting that the trial court was required to believe Appellant (and possibly his defense counsel) on the historical fact issue of whether the acceptance deadline had been communicated to Appellant?”

2. “Did the court of appeals’ opinion relieve Appellant of his obligation to show prejudice–(a) by trampling the trial court’s prerogative to make credibility determinations based on witness demeanor, and (b) by ignoring Appellant’s failure to present evidence that he would have timely accepted the 35-year plea offer had the July acceptance deadline been communicated to him?”

Having examined the record and briefs and considered the arguments in the case, we have determined that our decision to grant review was improvident. We therefore dismiss the State's petition as improvidently granted.

Meyers, J.

Delivered: October 22, 2003

Publish


This information is made available as a free public service for your personal, non-commercial use. While every effort has been made to provide accurate material at this site, it is provided "as is" and no representations are made that it is free of mistakes or inaccuracies. This file was derived from the text posted on the web site of the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, by the automatic operation of conversion software, and may contain errors.

Baker's Legal Pages are a public service of Freelance Enterprises, Inc.
Casenotes Listing Table of Recent Opinions
Send your comments or suggestions to fei@bakers-legal-pages.com
© 2003 Lang Baker