green
Positive treatment
53.3 score
Treatment trajectory · 2015 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2015
2020
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 38 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Rickey Wayne Edwards v. the State of Texas
Salinas v. State, 464 S.W.3d 363, 366 (Tex. Crim.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Ex Parte: Seth Andrew Sutton v. the State of Texas
Salinas v. State, 464 S.W.3d 363, 366 (Tex. Crim.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Ex Parte Destin Spearman v. the State of Texas
(2×)
also: Cited "see, e.g."
Salinas v. State, 464 S.W.3d 363, 366 (Tex. Crim.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Ex Parte: Raghavendra Chanagond v. the State of Texas
Salinas v. State, 464 S.W.3d 363, 366 (Tex. Crim.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Ex Parte Samuel Ashton Mills v. THE STATE OF TEXAS
Salinas v. State, 464 S.W.3d 363, 366 (Tex. Crim.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Valeska Barnes v. the State of Texas
Salinas v. State, 464 S.W.3d 363, 366 (Tex. Crim.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Ex Parte Medger Chauncey Duckens
See Ingram, 533 S.W.3d at 891-92 ; Smith, 185 S.W.3d at 892 (explaining that, generally, “a claim is cognizable in a pretrial writ of habeas corpus if, resolved in the defendant’s favor, it would deprive the trial court of the power to proceed and result in the appellant’s immediate release”); cf. Salinas v. State, 464 S.W.3d 363, 366 (Tex. Crim.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Stephens, Zena Collins
Salinas v. State, 464 S.W.3d 363, 366 (Tex. Crim.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Ex Parte: Scott Kent Chamberlain
Salinas v. State, 464 S.W.3d 363, 367 (Tex. Crim.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Steven Elmer Hinds v. the State of Texas
Salinas v. State, 464 S.W.3d 363, 367 (Tex. Crim.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Ashley Becker v. State
Those rulings direct us to forgo assessing the constitutionality of a statute unless such assessment is “‘absolutely necessary to decide the case in which it is raised.’” Salinas v. State, 464 S.W.3d 363, 366 (Tex. Crim.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Shawn Patrick Hurst AKA Shawn Patrick Hurst, II v. State
Salinas v. State, 464 S.W.3d 363, 366 (Tex. Crim.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Shannon Charles Scott v. State
Because we may not determine the constitutionality of a statute unless that determination is absolutely necessary to decide the case, see Salinas v. State, 464 S.W.3d 363, 366 (Tex. Crim.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Leland Kremplewski v. State
Salinas v. State, 464 S.W.3d 363, 367 (Tex. Crim.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Andre Donovan Prescott v. State
Because we may not determine the constitutionality of a statute unless that determination is absolutely necessary to decide the case, see Salinas v. State, 464 S.W.3d 363, 366 (Tex. Crim.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Da Ryan Tarrell Simms v. State
Salinas v. State, 464 S.W.3d 363, 366 (Tex. Crim.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
John Franklin Bell, Jr. v. State
(2×)
also: Cited "see"
Salinas v. State, 464 S.W.3d 363, 367 (Tex. Crim.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Shain Michael Pugh v. State
App. 2017); Salinas v. State, 464 S.W.3d 363, 366 (Tex. Crim.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Edward Joseph Osuna v. State
App. 2017); Salinas v. State, 464 S.W.3d 363, 366 (Tex. Crim.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Kimberly Nicole Cormier v. State
Salinas v. State, 464 S.W.3d 363, 366 (Tex. Crim.
examined
Cited as authority (rule)
Salinas, Orlando
(5×)
also: Cited "see"
ANALYSIS A. Facial Challenges, Separation of Powers, and Court Costs Appellant claims that Local Government Code § 133.102 is facially unconstitutional in its entirety because some of the funds from the consolidated fee are statutorily apportioned to accounts 4 Id. at 327-28. 5 Salinas, 464 S.W.3d at 368. 6 Salinas v. State, 485 S.W.3d 222, 226 (Tex. App.–Houston [14th Dist.] 2015). 7 Id. at 226 . 8 Id. 9 Id. at 226-27 .
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Christopher Matthew Conway v. State
“In a facial challenge to a statute, evidence of how the statute operates in actual practice is irrelevant; courts consider only how the statute is written, not how it operates in practice.” Salinas v. State, 464 S.W.3d 363, 368 (Tex. Crim.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Enrique Martinez v. State
Salinas v. State, 464 S.W.3d 363, 366 (Tex.Crim.App. 2015); see also Fielding v. State, 266 S.W.3d 627, 632 (Tex.App.-El Paso 2008, pet. ref'd).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Jenkins, Taurus
(2×)
also: Cited "see"
Salinas v. State, 464 S.W.3d 363, 367 (Tex. Crim.
examined
Cited as authority (rule)
Ex Parte Derek Ty Poe
(4×)
also: Cited "see"
Salinas v. State, 464 S.W.3d 363, 367 (Tex. Crim.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Carlton Charles Penright v. State
Salinas v. State, 464 S.W.3d 363, 368 (Tex. Crim.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Davis, Terrell Ladel
Guerrero v. State, Nos. 01- 13-00821-CR, 01-13-00822-CR, 2015 WL 2266247 , at *3–4 (Tex. App.— Houston [1st Dist.] May 14, 2015, pet. filed) (mem. op., not designated for publication) (“[Johnson] did not address the constitutionality of court costs, and, therefore, [does] not support Guerrero’s contention that he may assert his constitutional claim for the first time on appeal. . . . [W]e hold that Guerrero failed to preserve his constitutional challenge to . . . section 133.102’s allocation of funds . . . .”); see also Thias v. State, No. 07-12-00513-CR, 2014 WL 6556530 , at *2 (T…
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Ex Parte Brent Wayne Justice v. State
Salinas v. State, 464 S.W.3d 363, 367 (Tex. Crim.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Terrell Ladel Davis v. State
Guerrero v. State, Nos. 01- 13-00821-CR, 01-13-00822-CR, 2015 WL 2266247 , at *3–4 (Tex. App.— Houston [1st Dist.] May 14, 2015, pet. filed) (mem. op., not designated for publication) (“[Johnson] did not address the constitutionality of court costs, and, therefore, [does] not support Guerrero’s contention that he may assert his constitutional claim for the first time on appeal. . . . [W]e hold that Guerrero failed to preserve his constitutional challenge to . . . section 133.102’s allocation of funds . . . .”); see also Thias v. State, No. 07-12-00513-CR, 2014 WL 6556530 , at *2 (T…
cited
Cited "see"
Chad Michael Fernandez v. State
See Salinas v. State, 426 S.W.3d 318, 323 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2014) (op. on reh’g), rev’d on unrelated grounds, 464 S.W.3d 363 (Tex. Crim.
cited
Cited "see"
Jordan Lee Arnett v. State
See generally Salinas v. State, 464 S.W.3d 363, 367 (Tex. Crim.
cited
Cited "see"
MacMichael Kelechi Nwaiwu v. State
See Salinas v. State, 426 S.W.3d 318, 323 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2014) (op. on reh’g), rev’d on unrelated grounds, 464 S.W.3d 363 (Tex. Crim.
cited
Cited "see"
Ex Parte: Jesus Aguilar
See Salinas v. State, 464 S.W.3d 363, 367 (Tex.Crim.App. 2015).
discussed
Cited "see"
Armin Glenn Ingram v. State
See Salinas v. State, 464 S.W.3d 363, 368 (Tex. Crim.
cited
Cited "see"
John Allen Lessner v. State
See Salinas v. State, 426 S.W.3d 318, 323 (Tex. App.–– Houston [14th Dist.] 2014) (op. on reh’g), rev’d on unrelated grounds, 464 S.W.3d 363 (Tex. Crim.
discussed
Cited "see"
State v. Frank Empey
(2×)
Rosseau, 396 S.W.3d at 558 (“Because appellee has failed to show that it is unconstitutional in every possible respect, the statute is not facially unconstitutional.”); see Salinas v. State, 464 S.W.3d 363, 367 (Tex. Crim.
discussed
Cited "see"
Salinas v. State
(2×)
See Salinas v. State, 464 S.W.3d 363 (Tex.Crim.App.2015).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Ex Parte Al Letroy SMITH, Applicant
v.
the STATE of Texas
v.
the STATE of Texas
NO. WR-79,465-01.
Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
Jun 24, 2015.
John Bennett, Amarillo, for Applicant., John L. Owen, Asst. Dist. Atty., Amarillo, Lisa C. McMinn, State’s Attorney, Austin, for State of Texas.
Meyers.
Published
DISSENTING OPINION
MEYERS, J.,filed a dissenting opinion.
As I have discussed before, I thought instituting laches ’for writs of habeas corpus was unfair and had no legal basis. Perez v. State, 398 S.W.3d 206, 219-20 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013) (Meyers, J., dissenting). Laches was instituted as an equitable doctrine meant to prevent the supposed hardship that the State might encounter in retrying an applicant if relief were obtained. See Black’s Law DictionaRY 1006 (10th ed. 2014). Perez, however, turned it into an instrument to allow the State to prevent applicants from obtaining habeas hearings, and ultimately, relief.
The majority in the present case further handicapped applicants by allowing sua sponte consideration of laches without requiring the State to even argue that the doctrine should be employed. Even though the State in this case did not assert that it needed laches to prevent a hardship in retrial, the majority referred the case back to the trial judge to make findings on Applicant’s, reason for delay. From my reading of the majority opinion, it does not seem that the judge’s findings were based on anything other than the applicant’s statement of his understanding of his ability to file a writ. It is not based on any analysis of prejudice the State may encounter in retrying the case. Therefore, I cannot agree with' the conclusion that Applicant should be laches-barred.
The majority’s action today is not only unfair, it is straight out mean. It is dis-' couraging to see how this court is continually moving toward limiting defendants’ rights that are both statutorily and constitutionally guaranteed.
Because I believe that laches should not have been considered in Applicant’s case and that we should have heard his application for a writ of habeas corpus, I respectfully dissent.