green
Positive treatment
9.1 score
Treatment trajectory · 1996 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1996
2011
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 25 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
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.”).
discussed
Cited "see"
Commonwealth v. Silva
See State v. Henderson, 271 Ga. 264, 267-268 (1999), cert. denied, 528 U.S. 1083 (2000) (agreeing with principle that warrantless search of pretrial detainee’s cell solely at prosecutor’s request would be improper; search warrant would be required).
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).
discussed
Cited "see"
Licudine v. Winter
For this reason, citizenship was not extended “to persons living in United States territories simply because the territories are ‘subject to the jurisdiction’ or ‘within the dominion’ of the United States.” Id.; see Friend v. Reno, 172 F.3d 638, 645 (9th Cir. 1999) (holding that residence in the Philippines during its territorial period did not constitute residence in the United States, such that “a parent’s residence in the Philippines in 1931 did not permit that parent to transfer 11 his U.S. citizenship to his children”), cert. denied, 528 U.S. 1083 (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).
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 .
discussed
Cited "see"
No. 00-7059
See United States v. 817 N.E. 29th Dr., 175 F.3d 1304, 1309 (11th Cir.1999), cert. denied, 528 U.S. 1083 , 120 S.Ct. 806 , 145 L.Ed.2d 679 (2000) (stating that, under Bajakajian, "if the value of forfeited property is within the range of fines prescribed by Congress, a strong presumption arises that the forfeiture is constitutional").
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Wagoner County Real Estate
See United States v. 817 N.E. 29th Dr., 175 F.3d 1304, 1309 (11th Cir.1999), cert. denied, 528 U.S. 1083 , 120 S.Ct. 806 , 145 L.Ed.2d 679 (2000) (stating that, under Bajakajian, “if the value of forfeited property is within the range of fines prescribed by Congress, a strong presumption arises that the forfeiture is constitutional”).
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"
Stephenson v. State
See Dye v. State, 717 N.E.2d 5, 21 (Ind.1999) (citing generally Miller v. State, 702 N.E.2d 1053, 1069 (Ind.1998) (describing residual doubt as “[w]hen a jury finds a defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, there still may be a measure or residuum of doubt about the defendant’s guilt”), cert. denied, 528 U.S. 1083 , 120 S.Ct. 806 , 145 L.Ed.2d 679 (2000)), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 121 S.Ct. 379 , 148 L.Ed.2d 292 (2000).
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. McWilliams
See United States v. Orozco, 160 F.3d 1309 , 1310 fn. 1 (11th Cir.1998), cert. denied, - U.S. -, 120 S.Ct. 805 , 145 L.Ed.2d 678 (2000). .
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
State v. Gonzales-Bejarano
Rather, to establish that his or her constitutional right to conflict-free counsel was violated, a defendant must show (1) "that an actual conflict of interest existed" that (2) "adversely affected [his or her] lawyer's performance." Id. at 73 ; see also State v. Lovell , 1999 UT 40 , ¶ 22, 984 P.2d 382 , cert. denied , 528 U.S. 1083 , 120 S.Ct. 806 , 145 L.Ed.2d 679 (2000).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
State v. ALVAREZ-DELVALLE
See State v. Pando, 2005 UT App 384, ¶ 23 , 122 P.3d 672 (" 'While an indigent defendant has a right to have counsel appointed to represent him, he does not have a constitutional right to a lawyer other than the one appointed, absent good cause'" (quoting Pursifell, 746 P.2d at 272 )), cert. denied, 132 P.3d 683 (Utah 2006); see also State v. Lovell, 1999 UT 40, ¶ 22 , 984 P.2d 382 (establishing that when the defendant requests new counsel, the defendant carries the burden of proving that good cause warrants the substitution of counsel), cert. denied, 528 U.S. 1083 , 120 S.Ct. 806 , 145 L.Ed…
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).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Ramirez
v.
United States
v.
United States
No. 99-6251.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Jan 10, 2000.
Published
C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.