green
Positive treatment
Quoted verbatim 1×
9.4 score
“use of an alias has been recognized as evidence of a consciousness of guilt.”
Treatment trajectory · 2000 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2000
2013
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 27 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
Com. v. Culver, H.
use of an alias has been recognized as evidence of a consciousness of guilt.
discussed
Cited "see"
Aldo Ivan Blanco v. State
See Chamberlain v. State, 998 S.W.2d 230, 238 (Tex.Crim.App. 1999), cert. denied, 528 U.S. 1082 , 120 S.Ct. 805 , 145 L.Ed.2d 678 (2000)(explaining that unless and until multiple errors are found to have been committed, there can be no cumulative error effect because non-errors cannot in their cumulative effect create harmful error).
discussed
Cited "see"
Estes v. State
See Chamberlain v. State, 998 S.W.2d 230, 238 , (Tex.Crim.App.1999) (“[W]e are aware of no authority holding that non-errors may in their cumulative effect cause error.”), cert. denied, 528 U.S. 1082 , 120 S.Ct. 805 , 145 L.Ed.2d 678 (2000); Ryser v. State, 453 S.W.3d 17, 43 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 2014, pet. refd) (“Because we have concluded that there was no error, there can be no cumur lative error or harm.”).
cited
Cited "see"
Norine Etienne v. State
See Chamberlain v. State, 998 S.W.2d 230, 238 (Tex.Crim.App. 1999), cert. denied, 528 U.S. 1082 , 120 S.Ct. 805 , 145 L.Ed.2d 678 (2000).
discussed
Cited "see"
Jose Juan Sandoval v. State
See Cathey v. State, 992 S.W.2d 460, 462 (Tex.Crim.App. 1999), cert. denied, 528 U.S. 1082 , 120 S.Ct. 805 , 145 L.Ed.2d 678 (2000)(expressly distinguishing legal and factual sufficiency standards from the accomplice-witness standard of review under Article 38.14).
cited
Cited "see"
George Tolbert v. State
See Chamberlain v. State, 998 S.W.2d 230, 236 (Tex.Crim.App. 1999), cert. denied, 528 U.S. 1082 , 120 S.Ct. 805 , 145 L.Ed.2d 678 (2000).
cited
Cited "see"
George Tolbert v. State
See Chamberlain v. State , 998 S.W.2d 230, 236 (Tex.Crim.App. 1999), cert. denied , 528 U.S. 1082 , 120 S.Ct. 805 , 145 L.Ed.2d 678 (2000).
cited
Cited "see"
Dodson v. State
See Cathey v. State, 992 S.W.2d 460, 462-63 (Tex.Crim.App.1999), cert. denied, 528 U.S. 1082 , 120 S.Ct. 805 , 145 L.Ed.2d 678 (2000). 4 .
discussed
Cited "see"
Sanders v. State
See Chamberlain v. State, 998 S.W.2d 230, 235 (Tex.Crim.App.1999), cert. denied, 528 U.S. 1082 , 120 S.Ct. 805 , 145 L.Ed.2d 678 (2000) (commenting that it is well established that questions regarding the admission of evidence are rendered moot if the same evidence is elsewhere introduced without objection).
discussed
Cited "see"
Kenneth Edward Sanders A/K/A Kenneth Edwards Sanders v. State
See id. ; Matz v. State , 21 S.W.3d 911, 912 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2000, pet. ref’d) (holding that even if the trial court had erred by improperly admitting evidence, such error was harmless when the evidence was later introduced without objection); Brown v. State , 6 S.W.3d 571, 580 (Tex. App.—Tyler 1999, pet. ref’d) (stating that “[e]ven when inadmissible evidence is erroneously admitted, the error is cured when the same evidence is admitted without objection elsewhere at trial”).
cited
Cited "see"
Perry v. State
See Cathey v. State, 992 S.W.2d 460, 466 (Tex.Cr.App.1999), cert. denied, 528 U.S. 1082 , 120 S.Ct. 805 , 145 L.Ed.2d 678 (2000).
cited
Cited "see"
Turner v. State
See Chamberlain v. State, 998 S.W.2d 230, 237-38 (Tex.Cr.App.), cert. denied, 528 U.S. 1082 , 120 S.Ct. 805 , 145 L.Ed.2d 678 (1999).
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Moreno
See United States v. Orozco, 160 F.3d 1309 (11th Cir.1998), ce rt. denied, 528 U.S. 1082 , 120 S.Ct. 805 , 145 L.Ed.2d 678 (2000) (holding district judge lacked jurisdiction to consider Rule 35(b) motion when requirements not satisfied).
examined
Cited "see"
Mathis v. State
(4×)
also: Cited "see, e.g."
See Chamberlain v. State, 998 S.W.2d 230, 236 (Tex.Crim.App.1999), cert. denied, 528 U.S. 1082 , 120 S.Ct. 805 , 145 L.Ed.2d 678 (2000).
cited
Cited "see"
Johnson v. State
See Chamberlain v. State, 998 S.W.2d 230, 236 (Tex.Crim.App.1999), cert. denied, 528 U.S. 1082 , 120 S.Ct. 805 , 145 L.Ed.2d 678 (2000). 14 .
cited
Cited "see"
Jasper v. State
See Chamberlain v. State, 998 S.W.2d 230, 236 (Tex.Crim.App.1999), cert. denied, 528 U.S. 1082 , 120 S.Ct. 805 , 145 L.Ed.2d 678 (2000).
discussed
Cited "see"
Nethery v. State
See Johnston v. State, 959 S.W.2d 230, 236 (Tex.App.-Dallas 1997, no pet.). “‘Judicial scrutiny of counsel’s performance must be highly deferential’ ” Busby v. State, 990 S.W.2d 263, 268 (Tex.Crim.App.1999) (quoting Strickland, 466 U.S. at 687 , 104 S.Ct. 2052 ), cert. denied, 528 U.S. 1081 , 120 S.Ct. 803 , 145 L.Ed.2d 676 (2000).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Felix Rocha v. Rick Thaler, Director
The eleven federal courts of appeals that regularly entertain habeas petitions under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 have unanimously held that a federal court’s determination that a petitioner cannot prove his actual innocence does not constitute a decision on the merits of the petitioner’s constitutional claim for habeas relief.38 Quite the contrary: such a determination precludes a federal and precluded from merits review in federal court), cert. denied, __S. Ct.__, 2010 WL 2917636 (Nov. 1, 2010); Nobles, 127 F.3d at 422 (same); see also Busby v. Dretke, 359 F.3d 708, 724 (5th Cir.) (treating a petit…
examined
Cited "see, e.g."
Felix Rocha v. Rick Thaler, Director
(3×)
See, e.g., Simpson v. Matesanz, 175 F.3d 200, 215 (1st Cir.1999) ("Because there is neither 'cause’ nor 'actual innocence,’ ... the federal court sitting in habeas is precluded from hearing the merits of Simpson’s challenge.”), cer t. denied, 528 U.S. 1082 , 120 S.Ct. 803 , 145 L.Ed.2d 677 (2000); Jones v. Keane, 329 F.3d 290 , (2d Cir.) ("In the case of procedural default, we may reach the merits of the claim only if the defendant can first demonstrate either cause and actual prejudice, or that he is actually innocent.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Commonwealth v. Robinson
(2×)
Essentially, Appellant’s contention is that the trial court should have provided the jury with the instruction pursuant to Simmons v. South Carolina, 512 U.S. 154 , 114 S.Ct. 2187 , 129 L.Ed.2d 133 (1994), that a “life sentence” means “life without a possibility of parole.” However, as this Court has repeatedly held, “a Simmons instruction is required only where the prosecution makes the future dangerousness of the defendant an issue in the case and the defendant specifically requests such an instruction.” Commonwealth v. Champney, 574 Pa. 435 , 832 A.2d 403, 417 (2003); see also…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Jones v. State
(2×)
See also Davis v. United States, 724 A.2d 1163, 1169-1170 (D.C.App.1998), ce rt. denied, 528 U.S. 1082 , 120 S.Ct. 805 , 145 L.Ed.2d 678 (2000)(recognizing that Elstad did not require break between statements).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Gibbs
Fed.R.Crim.P. 35(b); United States v. Hayes, 983 F.2d 78, 81 (7th Cir.1992); see also United States v. Orozco, 160 F.3d 1309, 1315 (11th Cir.1998), cert denied, 528 U.S. 1082 , 120 S.Ct. 805 , 145 L.Ed.2d 678 (2000); United States v. Fraley, 988 F.2d 4, 6 (4th Cir.1993).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Young
Compare United States v. Morales, 52 F.3d 7,8 (1st Cir.1995) (Rule 35(b) requirement that information be “not known by the defendant” should be read broadly) with United States v. Orozco, 160 F.3d 1309 (11th Cir.1998), cert. denied, 528 U.S. 1082 , 120 S.Ct. 805 , 145 L.Ed.2d 678 (2000) (1 year time period for Rule 35 motion is jurisidictional), accord; United States v. Carey, 120 F.3d 509 (4th Cir.1997), cert. denied, 522 U.S. 1120 , 118 S.Ct. 1062 , 140 L.Ed.2d 122 (1998); and United States v. McDowell, 117 F.3d 974 (7th Cir.1997).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
McLaughlin v. Moore
(2×)
See also Simpson v. Matesanz, 175 F.3d 200, 210 (1st Cir.1999) (suggesting that the “actual innocence” or “fundamental miscarriage of justice” exception is available to non-capital defendants), cert. denied, 528 U.S. 1082 , 120 S.Ct. 803 , 145 L.Ed.2d 677 (2000); United States v. Barrett, 178 F.3d 34, 57 (1st Cir.1999) (same), cert. denied, 528 U.S. 1176 , 120 S.Ct. 1208 , 145 L.Ed.2d 1110 (2000).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Paulson v. State
(2×)
Awadelkariem v. State, 974 S.W.2d 721, 725 (Tex.Crim.App.1998) (citations omitted); see also Busby v. State, 990 S.W.2d 263, 267 (Tex.Crim.App.1999)(declining invitation to overrule precedent, court stated, "doctrine of stare decisis indicates a preference for maintaining consistency even if a particular precedent is wrong"), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 120 S.Ct. 803 , 145 L.Ed.2d 676 (2000).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Simpson
v.
Matesanz, Superintendent, Bay State Correctional Center
v.
Matesanz, Superintendent, Bay State Correctional Center
No. 99-5477.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Jan 10, 2000.
Published
Citer courts: Superior Court of Pennsylvania (1)
C. A. 1st Cir. Certiorari denied.