# Cockerham v. State

> Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · April 8, 1987 · 729 S.W.2d 742

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9774227

## Case

- **Full name:** Freddie Joe COCKERHAM, Appellant, v. the STATE of Texas, Appellee
- **Court:** Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas
- **Decided:** April 8, 1987
- **Citations:** 729 S.W.2d 742; 1987 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 573
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Opinion of the court by Miller
- **Judges:** Miller, Clinton, Onion, Davis, McCormick, White
- **Cited by:** 7 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/9774227

## Opinion text

OPINION ON STATE’S PETITION FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW
MILLER, Judge.
Appellant’s conviction for aggravated robbery was reversed by the Court of Ap *743 peals. Cockerham v. State, 703 S.W.2d 334 (Tex.App.-Corpus Christi 1985). The Court of Appeals ruled that the prosecutor’s indirect comment on appellant’s failure to testify was both improper and harmful under Art. 38.08, V.A.C.C.P.
We granted the State’s petition for discretionary review to examine the correctness of this holding. Upon careful review of the briefs of the respective parties and of the Court of Appeals’ opinion, we find that the decision of the Court of Appeals is correct and does not merit further review by this Court. The State’s petition for discretionary review is therefore dismissed as improvidently granted, pursuant to Tex. R.App. Pro. Rule 202(k). Michalenko v. State, 678 S.W.2d 75 (Tex.Cr.App.1984); Pruitt v. State, 678 S.W.2d 76 (Tex.Cr.App.1984).

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9774227. Public record. Not legal advice.