Gray v. StateGray v. State
- Reporters:
- ,
- Before:
- Torbert
Lead Opinion
The petition in this case was based on an alleged conflict with prior decisions of the Court of Criminal Appeals, however, the petitioner failed to comply with the requirements of Rule 39(c)(4), ARAP, in preparing his petition. For this reason the writ must be quashed as having been improvidently granted.
WRIT QUASHED AS IMPROVIDENTLY GRANTED.
Dissenting Opinion
(dissenting):
I respectfully dissent.
Although I agree that a strict construction of Rule 39 would have justified denial of the writ on preliminary examination, having granted it, however, this court, in my opinion, should address the merits of the petition.