Keller, Stephen Philip, 146 S.W.3d 677 (Tex. Crim. App. 2004). · Go Syfert
Search
Keller, Stephen Philip, 146 S.W.3d 677 (Tex. Crim. App. 2004). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
67 citation events (67 in the last 25 years) across 2 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Alexas Faragoza v. State of Texas, No. 01-24-00522-CR (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] Apr. 28, 2026)
Treatment trajectory · 2005 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2005 2015 2026
How cited ↗
Cited for
A presumption of truthfulness and regularity applies to documents filed in the trial court.no pin page on record · 2 citing cases listed
  • Efrain Jimenez v. State, No. 08-17-00124-CR (Tex. App.—El Paso May 8, 2019).published
    (A presumption of truthfulness and regularity applies to documents filed in the trial court.)
  • Efrain Jimenez v. State, No. 08-17-00124-CR (Tex. App.—El Paso May 25, 2018).published
    (A presumption of truthfulness and regularity applies to documents filed in the trial court.)
At page 678 Dismissing petition when grant of review was improvident2 citing casession to grant review was improvident. Therefore, the petition is dismissed.opening of page *678 (no citing court says what it cites this page for)
  • Steven Craig Debusk v. State, No. 05-16-00947-CR (Tex. App.—Dallas July 27, 2017).unpublished
    ANN. art. 1.15; McGill v. State, 200 S.W.3d 325, 330 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2006, no pet.); Keller v. State, 125 S.W.3d 600 , 604–05 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2003), pet. dism’d, improvidently granted, 146 S.W.3d 677, 678 (Tex. Crim.
  • Enrique Gonzalo Euan v. State, No. 05-16-00252-CR, 2017 WL 1536514 (Tex. App.—Dallas Apr. 27, 2017).unpublished
    ANN. art. 1.15; McGill v. State, 200 S.W.3d 325, 330 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2006, no pet.); Keller v. State, 125 S.W.3d 600 , 604–05 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2003), pet. dism’d, improvidently granted, 146 S.W.3d 677, 678 (Tex. Crim.
At page 677 Reviewing legality of plea agreement in criminal case1 citing caseOPINION PER CURIAM. Appellant was convicted of criminal solicitation of a minor with a deadly weapon. He was sentenced to four years in prison and a $10,000…opening of page *677 (no citing court says what it cites this page for)
  • Pedro Enrique Posada v. State, No. 01-06-00307-CR (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] June 28, 2007).unpublished
    Keller v. State , 125 S.W.3d 600, 606-07 (Tex. App.--Houston [1st Dist.] 2003), pet. dism'd, improvidently granted , 146 S.W.3d 677, 677-78 (Tex. Crim.
Quoted next to this citation, but not language from this opinion
“a presumption of truthfulness and regularity applies to documents filed in the trial court.”quoted beside the cite; not in this opinion · 2 citing cases listed
  • Efrain Jimenez v. State, No. 08-17-00124-CR (Tex. App.—El Paso May 8, 2019).published
    “a presumption of truthfulness and regularity applies to documents filed in the trial court.”
  • Efrain Jimenez v. State, No. 08-17-00124-CR (Tex. App.—El Paso May 25, 2018).published
    “a presumption of truthfulness and regularity applies to documents filed in the trial court.”
Other citing cases9 with no pin cite or quoted language on record
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Stephen Philip KELLER, Appellant,
v.
the STATE of Texas
PD-1971-03.
Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
Oct 13, 2004.
Published opinion
146 S.W.3d 677
2004 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 1740
2004 WL 2303502
Mike DeGeurin, Houston, for Appellant., Donald W. Rogers, Jr., Asst. District Atty., Houston, Matthew Paul, State’s Atty., Austin, for State.
Per Curiam.
Cited by 57 opinions  |  Published
2 passages pin-cited by 3 cases
Pinpoint authority: #42,687 of 633,719
Citer courts: Court of Appeals of Texas (2) · Tex. App. Ct., 1st Dist. (Hous… (1)

OPINION

PER CURIAM.

Appellant was convicted of criminal solicitation of a minor with a deadly weapon. He was sentenced to four years in prison and a $10,000 fine. The Court of Appeals affirmed. Keller v. State, 125 S.W.3d 600 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 2003).

We granted discretionary review to address whether the plea agreement was illegal. We have determined that our deci[*678] sion to grant review was improvident. Therefore, the petition is dismissed.