# Rhoades v. State

> Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · October 2, 1996 · 934 S.W.2d 113

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9665127

## Case

- **Full name:** Rick Allan RHOADES, Appellant, v. the STATE of Texas, Appellee
- **Court:** Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas
- **Decided:** October 2, 1996
- **Citations:** 934 S.W.2d 113; 1996 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 205; 1996 WL 557833
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Baird
- **Judges:** Mansfield, Baird, Clinton, Maloney, Meyers, Overstreet
- **Cited by:** 935 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9665127

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- concluding that defendant failed to present complaint that his sentence violated Texas 2 “The Texas Constitution proscribes ‘cruel or unusual punishments’ while the Eighth Amendment prohibits ‘cruel and unusual punishments,’” but the Court of Criminal Appeals has found “no sig…
- holding that photographs depicting appellant’s “cheerful early childhood” were “irrelevant to [his] moral blameworthiness for the commission of a violent double-murder because such evidence ha[d] no relationship to [his] conduct in those murders”
- finding appellant waived complaint that trial court=s refusal to inform jury of minimum sentence before parole eligibility violated Texas Constitutional ban on cruel and unusual punishment by not lodging that complaint before the trial court
- explaining that the purpose of article III, section 36 is for “amended statutes to be re-enacted and published so that their meaning may be known without the necessity of examining the statute amended”

## Opinion text

BAIRD, J.,
concurring with the following note: I am sympathetic to the views expressed in Judge Overstreet’s well reasoned dissent. Post, 934 S.W.2d at 131 (Overstreet, J., dissenting). However, for the reasons stated in Smith v. State, 898 S.W.2d 838, 856 (Tex.Crim.App.1995) (Baird, J., concurring), and because the Supreme Court has not revisited its opinion in Simmons v. South Carolina, 512 U.S. 154 , 114 S.Ct. 2187 , 129 L.Ed.2d 133 (1994), I am constrained to join only the judgment of the Court.
MALONEY and MEYERS, JJ., concur in the result.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9665127. Public record. Not legal advice.