*1 283 current rule. See Tex. Penal sentence (sentence may § run consecu-
Code 3.03
tively if sentence is for intoxication each
manslaughter).
Therefore, judgment the of we reform
the Court order Appeals of and that counts
one, (involving separate three and four convictions) manslaughter and
intoxication a (involving separate
count five intoxi- conviction)
cation run assault will concur-
rently, (involving while count two sepa- a conviction) rate manslaughter intoxication Paso, appеllant. Louis E. El for Lopez, consecutively one, will run to counts three Davis, Atty., John L. Asst. Dist. El Tex.R.App. 78.1(b) (Court and four. See P. Paso, Paul, Austin, Atty. Matthew State’s may modify of Appeals Criminal lower for the State. affirm court’s and it judgment as modi- fied). OPINION reasons, For the foregoing we affirm the PER opinion The delivered was
Court of judgment as Appeals modified. CURIAM. jury Appellant A cоnvicted of two counts indecency jury The of with a child. as confinement for punishment sessed at fif years teen on count. The Court of each Appeals reversed thе conviction after de termining that trial court erred in the permit to to refusing Appellant ask the CENA, Appellant, Stephen jury panel question during a proper voir State, dire examination. v. 960 Cena v. Paso, 1997). 804 (Tex.App S.W.2d . —El has for petition The State filed a discre of Texas. The STATE tionary review. No. 1385-97. The Court held that the trial Appeals of by refusing abused to court its discretion Appeals Court of Criminal of Texas. jury panel ask the а permit Appellant to 12, May 1999. Relying voir on proper question. dire (Tex.Cr. State, v. 482 808 S.W.2d
Nunfio
the
of
reversed
App.1991),
Appeals
Court
conducting
conviction
a harm
the
without
analysis.
petition,
In its
the State con
erred in
Appeals
failing
tends the Court of
In
analysis.
conduct a harm
Cain v.
to
State,
(Tex.Cr.App.1997),
Accordingly, we summarily grant OPINION ground two of petition the State’s for dis- opinion The of the Court was dеlivered cretionary review, judgment vacate the of PER CURIAM. the Court of Appeals, аnd the remand case Appellant in a single was convicted trial to court that tо analysis. conduct a harm capital of attempted aggravat murder and Ground one of petition the State’s is re- ed punishment assault. His was assessed fused. at for thirty yeаrs confinement and four years, teen respectively. The convictions
MEYERS, J., concurs with note.
State,
were
v.
affirmed.
Johnson
983
S.W.2d 800 (Tex.App.
th
[14
— Houston
Since this
“only
Court’s
word”
analyz
on
1998). Appellant
a petition
Dist.]
filed
for
ing harm in the voir dire context under
review,
discretiоnary
raising two grounds
Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure 44.2
for review.
State,
comes from Jones v.
The STATE of Texas. case, ed this did not the of it have benefit Ervin, 169-99, opinion parte our in Ex 991 S.W.2d Nos. 170-99. 1999), (Tеx.Crim.App., 804 where this of Appeals Court Criminal of Texas. that Court determined two offenses were the same double jeopardy purposes. for 12, May 1999. These had been triеd in one pro offenses held,
ceeding,
Court
“A
and this
double
in
jeopardy violation occurs even when as
case,
this
the sentences are concurrent.
States,
v.
U.S.
Bаll
United
470
856 864-
Houston,
Kristine C. Woldy,
appel-.
for
865,
1668,
105 S.Ct.