Opinion · Txlaw Texas

THIBEADEAU v. STATE, 761 S.W.2d 22 (Tex.Cr.App. 1988)

Steven Michael THIBEADEAU, Appellant, v. STATE of Tex., Appellee., 761 S.W.2d 22 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas,En Banc. 1988)

Type
Opinion
Court
Txlaw Texas
Jurisdiction
Txlaw
Date
1988-11-09
Topic
general

THIBEADEAU v. STATE, 761 S.W.2d 22 (Tex.Cr.App. 1988) 761 S.W.2d 22 Steven Michael THIBEADEAU, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee. No. 1222-87.Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas,En Banc. November. 9, 1988.

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed THIBEADEAU v. STATE, 761 S.W.2d 22 (Tex.Cr.App. 1988). The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

Authority status
pending
THIBEADEAU v. STATE,761 S.W.2d 22(Tex.Cr.App. 1988)
761 S.W.2d 22
Steven Michael THIBEADEAU, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee.
No. 1222-87.
Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas,
En Banc.
November. 9, 1988.
Appeal from the 75th Judicial District Court, Liberty County; Clarence D. Cain, J.
William E. Hall, Jr. (on appeal only), George E. Renneberg (on appeal only), Conroe, for appellant.

Michael R. Little, Dist. Atty., Steve Green, Asst. Dist. Atty., Liberty, Robert Huttash, State's Atty., Austin, for the State.
Before the court en banc.
OPINION ON APPELLANT'S PETITION FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW
PER CURIAM.
Appeal is taken from a conviction for the offense of possession of cocaine of less than 400 grams but at least 28 grams. After finding appellant guilty, the jury assessed punishment at twenty years in the Texas Department of Corrections and A $10,000.00 fine.

On direct appeal, appellant argued the trial court erred in instructing the jury on the law concerning good time and parole, inasmuch as the charge is predicated upon an unconstitutional statute. The court of appeals rejected appellant's challenge to Article37.07, § 4, V.A.C.C.P.Thibeadeau v. State,739 S.W.2d 482(Tex.App. — Beaumont 1987).

In his petition for discretionary review, appellant urges the court of appeals erred in holding Article 37.07, § 4, supra, is constitutional. We find appellant is correct.

InRose v. State,752 S.W.2d 529(Tex.Cr.App. 1988), this Court determined that Article 37.07, § 4, is unconstitutional. UnderRose,supra, it is still necessary for the court of appeals to conduct a harmless error analysis under the guidelines of Tex.R.App.P. 81(b)(2).

The judgment of the court of appeals is vacated and this cause is remanded to that court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.