Cook v. Texas (Original)
Annotate this CaseA jury convicted appellant David Cook of manslaughter and returned a verdict of six years' confinement with a recommendation that it be probated. The trial judge then formally sentenced appellant. Forty-five minutes later, the same "jury" returned a second punishment verdict of six years' confinement with no recommendation that it be probated. The trial judge again sentenced appellant. What happened between those two formal sentencing pronouncements was only partially reflected in the record. On appeal, appellant sought reinstatement of his probated sentence. The court of appeals held that the trial judge's decision to reconvene the jury under the particular facts in this case was harmful error, and it remanded the case to the trial court for a new punishment hearing. Both the State and appellant appealed that decision. The State argued that the court of appeals should have found the error forfeited. Appellant argued that the court of appeals should have reinstated his original, probated sentence. Upon review, the Supreme Court concluded that appellant preserved the re-sentencing issue for appellate review, and reinstated his original, probated sentence.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.