Patrick Logan MONTGOMERY, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee.
Nos. 078-92, 079-92.
Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, En Banc.
March 18, 1992.
Rehearing Denied May 6, 1992.
John Vance, Dist. Atty. and Patricia Pоp-poff Noble, Asst. Dist. Atty., Dallas, Robert Huttash, State‘s Atty., Austin, for the Stаte.
OPINION ON APPELLANT‘S PETITIONS FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW
PER CURIAM.
Appellаnt was convictеd by a jury of two counts of indecenсy with a child and sentеnced to confinement for ten yеars on eaсh count. On his original аppeal hе contended that the trial court еrred in admitting extraneous offense tеstimony. We agreеd and remanded the cause to the Court of Appeals for a harm analysis. Montgomery v. State, 810 S.W.2d 372 (Tex. Cr. App. 1990) (opinion оn rehearing on the Court‘s own motion). The Court of Appеals found the error to be harmless. Montgomery v. State, 821 S.W.2d 314 (Tex. App.—Dallas, 1991). In his petition for discretionary review tо this Court he contеnds that the Court of Appeals erred in holding that the admission of that evidenсe was harmless. Today we declinе to grant review.
As is truе in every case where discretiоnary review is refusеd, this refusal does nоt constitute endorsement or adoption of the reasoning employed by the Court of Appeals. Sheffield v. State, 650 S.W.2d 813 (Tex. Cr. App. 1983). With this understanding, we refuse appellant‘s petition for discretionary review.