Opinion · Txlaw Texas

FLORES v. STATE, 676 S.W.2d 364 (Tex.Cr.App. 1984)

Norberto Martinez FLORES, Appellant, v. STATE of Tex., Appellee., 676 S.W.2d 364 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas,En Banc. 1984)

Type
Opinion
Court
Txlaw Texas
Jurisdiction
Txlaw
Date
1984-06-20
Topic
general

FLORES v. STATE, 676 S.W.2d 364 (Tex.Cr.App. 1984) 676 S.W.2d 364 Norberto Martinez FLORES, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee. No. 172-83.Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas,En Banc. June 20, 1984.

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed FLORES v. STATE, 676 S.W.2d 364 (Tex.Cr.App. 1984). The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

FLORES v. STATE,676 S.W.2d 364(Tex.Cr.App. 1984)
676 S.W.2d 364
Norberto Martinez FLORES, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee.
No. 172-83.
Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas,
En Banc.
June 20, 1984.
Appeal from 138th. Judicial District, Cameron County; Melchor Chavez, J.
Hector Yznaga, Brownsville, for appellant.

Reynaldo S. Cantu, Jr., Dist. Atty. and Marjory Colvin, Asst. Dist. Atty., Brownsville, Robert Huttash, State's Atty. and Alfred Walker, First Asst. State's Atty., Austin, for the State.
Before the court en banc.
OPINION ON APPELLANT'S PETITION FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW
McCORMICK, Judge.
We granted appellant's petition for discretionary review to review the holding of the Thirteenth Court of Appeals,654 S.W.2d 14, as to the appellant's allegation of jury misconduct resulting from discussion of parole laws. The Court of Appeals applied the test that was set out in the plurality opinion inMunroe v. State,637 S.W.2d 475(Tex.Cr.App. 1982), and found no reversible error. On May 23, 1984, this Court handed down an opinion in the case ofSneed v. State,670 S.W.2d 262(1984), in which we readopted "the five prong test of pre-Heredia cases." SeeHeredia v. State,528 S.W.2d 847(Tex.Cr.App. 1975).

We have reviewed this case under the five-prong test adopted inSneedand have determined that the decision of the Court of Appeals is correct. The appellant's petition for discretionary review was improvidently granted. It is, therefore, ordered dismissed.