green
Positive treatment
Quoted verbatim 4×
25.3 score
G Cite
cited 2× by 2 distinct cases ·
…defendant attacks the facial constitutional- ity of the future dangerousness question, set out in ors 163.150(1)(b)(b) . because defendant did not preserve those arguments and they do not qualify as error apparent on the face of the record, we do not address them.
⚠ not in text
Treatment trajectory · 2004 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2004
2015
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 14 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
State v. Johnson
nothing about the crimes charged in this case demonstrates that the precise location of the underlying crimes constitutes a material element of those crimes on which the jury must agree unanimously.
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
State v. Johnson
nothing about the crimes charged in this case demonstrates that the precise location of the underlying crimes constitutes a material element of those crimes on which the jury must agree unanimously.
examined
Cited as authority (quoted)
State v. Parras
defendant attacks the facial constitutional- ity of the future dangerousness question, set out in ors 163.150(1)(b)(b) . because defendant did not preserve those arguments and they do not qualify as error apparent on the face of the record, we do not address them.
examined
Cited as authority (quoted)
State v. Parras
defendant attacks the facial constitutional- ity of the future dangerousness question, set out in ors 163.150(1)(b)(b) . because defendant did not preserve those arguments and they do not qualify as error apparent on the face of the record, we do not address them.
discussed
Cited "see"
Serrano v. Fhuere
See State v. Sparks, 336 Or 298, 324 , 83 P3d 304 , cert den, 543 US 893 (2004) (because a pen- alty phase jury must consider “whether defendant would be dangerous in prison society, the jury necessarily needed to understand the nature of that society”).
discussed
Cited "see"
Randant v. Cain
See State v. Ashkins, 357 Or 642, 653 , 357 P3d 490 (2015) (“[N]one of this court’s pre- vious decisions, including [State v. Sparks, 336 Or 298 , 83 P3d 304 , cert den, 543 US 893 (2004)], involved the precise situation at issue here, to which we now turn.”).
discussed
Cited "see"
State v. Ezell
See State v. Sparks, 336 Or 298, 308 , 83 P3d 304 , cert den, 543 US 893 (2004) (concluding that “the mere avail- ability of defendant’s offered stipulation as an alternate form of proof did not render” post-mortem photographs of the victim irrelevant).
discussed
Cited "see"
State v. Ezell
See State v. Sparks, 336 Or 298, 308 , 83 P3d 304 , cert den, 543 US 893 (2004) (concluding that “the mere avail- ability of defendant’s offered stipulation as an alternate form of proof did not render” post-mortem photographs of the victim irrelevant).
discussed
Cited "see"
State v. Allen
See State v. Sparks, 336 Or 298, 308 , 83 P3d 304 , cert den, 543 US 893 (2004) (explaining that a defendant’s stipulation is an alternate form of proof but does “not have the effect of making other- wise relevant evidence irrelevant”).
discussed
Cited "see"
State v. Brown
See State v. Sparks, 336 Or 298, 309-12 , 83 P3d 304 , cert den, 543 US 893 (2004) (concluding that, because post-mortem photographs were relevant to prove more than the defendant stipulated, the trial court did not err in declining to limit the state to the defendant’s stipulation).
discussed
Cited "see"
State v. SUPANCHICK
See State v. Sparks, 336 Or 298, 308 , 83 P3d 304 , cert den, 543 US 893 (2004) (the appellate court reviews “a trial court’s decision under OEC 403 for an abuse of discretion”).
discussed
Cited "see"
Garcia v. Thaler
See Larry v. Dretke, 361 F.3d 890, 896 (5th Cir.) (recognizing CoA’s are granted on an issue-by-issue basis), cert, denied, 543 U.S. 893 , 125 S.Ct. 141 , 160 L.Ed.2d 157 (2004); Crutcher v. Cockrell, 301 F.3d 656 , 658 n. 10 (5th Cir.2002) (holding a CoA is granted on an issue-by-issue basis, thereby limiting appellate review to those issues); Jones v. Cain, 227 F.3d 228 , 230 n. 2 (5th Cir.2000) (holding the same); Lackey v. Johnson, 116 F.3d 149, 151 (5th Cir.1997) (holding the scope of appellate review of denial of a habeas petition limited to the issues on which CoA has been granted).
discussed
Cited "see"
Garcia v. Thaler
See Larry v. Dretke, 361 F.3d 890, 896 (5th Cir.) (recognizing CoA’s are granted on an issue-by-issue basis), cert. denied, 543 U.S. 893 , 125 S.Ct. 141 , 160 L.Ed.2d 157 (2004); Crutcher v. Cockrell, 301 F.3d 656 , 658 n. 10 (5th Cir.2002) (holding a CoA is granted on an issue-by-issue basis, thereby limiting appellate review to those issues); Jones v. Cain, 227 F.3d 228 , 230 n. 2 (5th Cir.2000) (holding the same); Lackey v. Johnson, 116 F.3d 149, 151 (5th Cir.1997) (holding the scope of appellate review of denial of a habeas petition limited to the issues on which CoA has been granted).
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
State v. Serrano
See, e.g., State v. Sparks, 336 Or 298, 323-24 , 83 P3d 304 , cert den, 543 US 893 (2004).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Ochoa Canales
v.
Dretke, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division
v.
Dretke, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division
04-5321.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Oct 4, 2004.
Published
Citer courts: Court of Appeals of Oregon (4)
OCHOA CANALES
v.
DRETKE, DIRECTOR, TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE, CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTIONS DIVISION.
No. 04-5321.
Supreme Court of United States.
October 4, 2004.
1
C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.