Mixon v. State

OPINION ON APPELLANT’S PETITION FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW

PER CURIAM.

Appellant was convicted of murder in a bench trial upon his plea of nolo conten-dere. The trial judge also assessed his punishment, enhanced by a prior conviction, at 60 years confinement in the penitentiary. On direct appeal, appellant raised six points of error addressing the trial judge’s affirmative finding of use of a deadly weapon “to-wit an unknown object.” The court of appeals affirmed appellant’s conviction. Mixon v. State, 781 S.W.2d 345 (Tex.App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1989). We granted appellant’s petition for discretionary review on two interrelated grounds for review to determine whether the court of appeals erred in holding that the finding of “an unknown object” as a deadly weapon was proper and that there was sufficient evidence to support an affirmative finding that a deadly weapon was used in commission of this offense. We will affirm.

We have reviewed that part of the court of appeals’ opinion dealing with the merits of an affirmative finding of an unknown object as a deadly weapon and the evidence in support thereof.¹ We find the reasoning of the court of appeals is sound. We therefore adopt that part of the opinion as our own, without further comment. January v. State, 732 S.W.2d 632 (Tex.Cr.App.1987).

Appellant’s grounds for review are overruled, and the judgment of the court of appeals is affirmed.

OVERSTREET and MALONEY, JJ., not participating.

1 . Mixon, 781 S.W.2d at 346, Column 2, first full paragraph, to p. 347, Column 2, Line 7.