And you were surprised because the conviction was affirmed? Or maybe because J. Daphinot actually concurred in an opinion which kept a criminal in jail?
DO NOT PUBLISH is a legal term meaning that the case does not get printed in the official appellate record that lawyers can then use as precedent and cite in court. It just means there was no real new legal issue in this case and its not a case that created any need for future citation to a court. It doesn't mean it's not a public record. The only issue in the case was whether the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction. That is fact-specific to this case and has no bearing on any other case. It's like the court saying, "Nothing new here."
12 comments:
I also affirm.
My Other Brother Darryl
So does that mean that he will be eligible for parole in three months?
For a meth crook, he looks kinda normal-ish, not all shriveled up. Was he a user, or just the cook?
What is the comment at the bottom of the appeal document mean?
"DO NOT PUBLISH
Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b)"
Seems it is now published on this blog and the entire internet.
He was a cook, I saw him on Hell's Kitchen. He is Gordon Ramsey's meth supplier.
And you were surprised because the conviction was affirmed? Or maybe because J. Daphinot actually concurred in an opinion which kept a criminal in jail?
Meth. is a heckuva drug.
Fake Ghost Of Rick James
Uh-oh I guess Barry didn't read the fine Lawyer print where it said DO NOT PUBLISH.
ONLY 12 YEARS, WOW! You would think that the value of peoples lives who were affected by just one drug dealer would be much greater!
wish this blog didn't exist, why people get HIGHS on others issues
Dumb Cracker...
DO NOT PUBLISH is a legal term meaning that the case does not get printed in the official appellate record that lawyers can then use as precedent and cite in court. It just means there was no real new legal issue in this case and its not a case that created any need for future citation to a court. It doesn't mean it's not a public record. The only issue in the case was whether the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction. That is fact-specific to this case and has no bearing on any other case. It's like the court saying, "Nothing new here."
Post a Comment