[Download] "Toney v. State" by In the Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas ~ eBook PDF Kindle ePub Free

📘 Read Now     📥 Download

eBook details

• Title: Toney v. State
• Author : In the Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
• Release Date : January 23, 1999
• Genre: Law,Books,Professional & Technical,
• Pages : * pages
• Size : 56 KB

Description

Mark Anthony Toney appeals his conviction by a jury for delivery of cocaine, less than 28 grams. The trial court assessed his punishment at forty years imprisonment, enhanced by two prior felony convictions. On original submission, we reversed and remanded this case because the trial Judges omission of the required definitional jury instruction on "reasonable doubt" mandated automatic reversal without harm analysis under Reyes v. State, 938 S.W.2d 718 (Tex.Crim.App. 1996). Toney v. State, 942 S.W.2d 750, 751-52 (Tex.App.-Houston[14th Dist.] 1997). The State obtained discretionary review and the court of criminal appeals vacated our decision and remanded the cause to this court for further proceedings in light of Mann v. State, 964 S.W.2d 639 (Tex.Crim.App. 1998). Toney v. State, 979 S.W.2d 649 (Tex.Crim.App. 1998). Mann was decided subsequent to our opinion on original submission, and held that when the jury is given a partial or substantially correct charge on reasonable doubt, then any error therein is subject to a harm analysis. Mann, 964 S.W.2d at 641-42. If there is a total omission of the instruction on reasonable doubt, such error defies meaningful analysis by harmless error standards. Id. On remand, we are to determine if appellant has suffered "egregious harm," and if we find he has not, we should then address the remaining points of error originally brought by appellant. In four points of error, appellant contends: (1) the trial court abused its discretion in refusing to allow his mother to testify at the guilt/innocence stage because she violated rule 614, Texas Rules of Evidence ("The Rule"); (2) appellant was denied effective assistance of counsel; (3) the trial court erred in allowing improper jury argument by the prosecutor; (4) the trial court erred in failing to include an instruction on "reasonable doubt" in the courts charge at the guilt/innocence phase of appellants trial. We affirm.

Ebook Download "Toney v. State" PDF ePub Kindle