Garcia v. State (1994)
green
· 622 citation events
across 6 courts.
Showing the 50 strongest citers on record
(one row per citing case, strongest signal kept).
Treatment trajectory · 1994 → 2026 · click a year to view the case as of then
199420102026
Sort:
By significance ·
Most recent
green
Floribeth Sandoval Benjume v. the State of Texas (2024)
Garcia v. State, 887 S.W.2d 862, 875 (Tex. Crim.
green
Paul Luis Pelaez v. the State of Texas (2025)
Pelaez’s challenge to the accuracy of Longoria’s “translation was a fact question for the jury to determine.” Id. at 30 (citing Calixto v. State, 66 S.W.3d 505, 510 (Tex. App.—Austin 2001, pet. ref’d); Garcia v. State, 887 S.W.2d 862, 875 (Tex. Crim.
green
Arturo Lagunas v. the State of Texas (2023)
See Garcia, 887 S.W.2d at 875 (“[W]e cannot even review the question, because there is no legal issue presented; it is a factual question which ultimately only the 4 [factfinder] can answer, and which is not reviewable by this court.”); Martins v. State, 52 S.W.3d 459, 471 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi–Edinburg 2001, no pet.) (“An attack on the accuracy of a translation, on the other hand, is a question of fact for the factfinder and so not reviewable on appeal.”); Kan, 4 S.W.3d…
“[W]e cannot even review the question, because there is no legal issue presented; it is a factual question which ultimately only the 4 [factfinder] can answer, and which is not reviewable by this court.”
See Garcia, 887 S.W.2d at 875 (“[W]e cannot even review the question, because there is no legal issue presented; it is a factual question which ultimately only the jury can answer, and which is not reviewable by this court.”); Martins v. State, 52 S.W.3d 459, 471 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi– Edinburg 2001, no pet.) (“An attack on the accuracy of a translation, on the other hand, is a question of fact for the factfinder and so not reviewable on appeal.”); Kan, 4 S.W.3d at 43 (“…
“[W]e cannot even review the question, because there is no legal issue presented; it is a factual question which ultimately only the jury can answer, and which is not reviewable by this court.”
green
Seandre McMahon v. State (2020)
App. P. 33.1(a); Garcia v. State, 887 S.W.2d 862, 877 (Tex. Crim.
overruling the appellant’s claim that the State improperly commented on the appellant’s failure to testify because the defense did not object and preserve the error
green
Mahyar Arefi v. State (2019)
Ann. art. 38.30(a); Garcia v. State, 887 S.W.2d 862, 875 (Tex. Crim.
green
Thomas, Kenneth Dewayne (2016)
Garcia v. State, 887 S.W.2d 862, 882 (Tex. Crim.
stating that a reviewing court “will not brief appellant’s case for him”
green
Garza, Juan Jr. (2014)
App. [Panel Op.] 1979) ................................................................................................ 10, 13 Frazier v. Yu, 987 S.W.2d 607 , 609–10 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 1999, pet. denied) ............................................................................................ 11 Garcia v. State, 887 S.W.2d 862, 871 (Tex. Crim.
green
Terrence Brent McNeil v. State (2014)
Garcia v. State, 887 S.W.2d 862, 869 (Tex.Crim.App.1994) (citing Strickland, 466 U.S. at 687-89 , 104 S.Ct. 2052 ); see also Agbogwe v. State, 414 S.W.3d 820, 838 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 2013, no pet.) (“It is reasonable to conclude ... [that] defense counsel decided that seeking an instruction to disregard Ozoh’s testimony would only bring further attention to it”); see also Delgado v. State, 235 S.W.3d 244, 250 (Tex.Crim.App.2007) (“[T]he decision of whether to reque…
green
Ignacio Navarro v. State (2008)
App. 1994) , the Court told us that a “party opposing evidence has the burden of objecting and requesting the limiting instruction at the introduction of the evidence .” Id. at 878 (emphasis added); accord Hammock v. State , 46 S.W.3d 889, 894 (Tex. Crim.
emphasis added
green
Ignacio Navarro v. State (2008)
In Garcia v. State, 887 S.W.2d 862 (Tex.Crim.App.1994), the Court told us that a “party opposing evidence has the burden of objecting and requesting the limiting instruction at the introduction of the evidence." Id. at 878 (emphasis added); accord Hammock v. State, 46 S.W.3d 889, 894 (Tex.Crim.App.2001) (reaffirming the holding in Garcia).
emphasis added
green
Inette Wesley v. State (2008)
Garcia v. State, 887 S.W.2d 862, 880 (Tex. Crim.
citing Strickland, 466 U.S. at 690
green
Inette Wesley v. State (2008)
Garcia v. State , 887 S.W.2d 862, 880 (Tex. Crim.
citing Strickland , 466 U.S. at 690
green
Johnson v. State (2008)
Where the “appellant points us to nothing in the record, makes no argument, and cites no authority to support [ ]his proposition,” “[w]e will not make [the] appellant’s arguments for him[,] and [will] hold the allegation to be inadequately briefed.” Wyatt v. State, 23 S.W.3d 18 , 23 n. 5 (Tex.Crim.App.2000); see Gallo v. State, 239 S.W.3d 757, 768 (Tex.Crim.App.2007); Garcia v. State, 887 S.W.2d 862, 882 (Tex.Crim.App.1994).
green
Jonathan Paul Garcia v. the State of Texas (2025)
Garcia v. State, 887 S.W.2d 862, 877 (Tex. Crim.
green
Stevie Lynn Taylor v. the State of Texas (2022)
App. 2001) (reaffirming, in part, the court’s holding in Garcia v. State, 887 S.W.2d 862, 878 (Tex. Crim.
green
White, Brian Jason (2018)
App. 2001) (citing Garcia v. State, 887 S.W.2d 862, 878 (Tex. Crim.
green
Charles Joseph Ballard v. State (2017)
Garcia v. State, 887 S.W.2d 862, 880 (Tex. Crim.
green
Asim Shakur Rahim v. State (2015)
In Hammock, the Court of Criminal Appeals reaffirmed its prior holding that the request for a limiting instruction must be made by the party opposing the evidence “at the moment the evidence is admitted.” Hammock, 46 S.W.3d at 893 (reaffirming, in part, its holding in Garcia v. State, 887 S.W.2d 862, 878 (Tex. Crim.
green
Balderas, Juan A/K/A Apache (2015)
Cf. Garcia v. State, 887 S.W.2d 862, 875 (Tex. Cr.
“As a question of fact, appellant must settle the question of a translation’s accuracy at trial by impeaching the translation; cross-examination of the witness presents the most convenient vehicle, but impeachment may be accomplished by many other means.”
green
Eugenio Valdez v. State (2015)
App. 1996)(holding that defendant waived appellate review of his claim that the prosecutor impermissibly commented on defendant’s failure to testify by not objecting at trial), cert. denied, 520 U.S. 1173 , 117 S.Ct. 1442 , 137 L.Ed. 2d 548 (1997); Garcia v. State, 887 S.W. 2d 862, 877 (Tex. Crim.
holding that no error was preserved when the defendant failed to object to the State commenting on the defendant not testifying
green
Kerry Dean Parks v. State (2015)
Appellant argues here that no competent attorney would have failed to request a limiting instruction under these circumstances, but on this silent record, appellant has not met his burden of showing that his counsel’s representation was ineffective. 4 See, e.g., Garcia v. State, 887 S.W.2d 862, 881 (Tex.Crim.App.1994) (holding trial counsel’s failure to request a limiting instruction did not constitute ineffective assistance because counsel did not want to draw more attentio…
green
Johnson, Matthew Lee (2015)
Garcia v. State, 887 S.W.2d 862, 882 (Tex. Crim.
stating that a reviewing court “will not brief appellant’s case for him”
green
Terrence Brent McNeil v. State (2014)
Garcia v. State, 887 S.W.2d 862, 889 (Tex. Crim.
citing Strickland, 466 U.S. at 687–89
green
Joseph Kevin Villyard v. State (2014)
“Once evidence is admitted without a proper limiting instruction, it becomes part of the general evidence in the case and may be considered for all purposes.” Arana, 1 S.W.3d at 829 (citing Garcia v. State, 887 S.W.2d 862, 878 (Tex. Crim.
green
Christopher Jerome Waldon v. State of Texas (2014)
Garcia v. State, 887 S.W.2d 862, 877 (Tex. Crim.
green
Andre Scales v. State (2014)
McGee, 342 - 10 - 04-12-00435-CR S.W.3d at 247–48 (citing Garcia v. State, 887 S.W.2d 862, 876 (Tex. Crim.
green
Elisa Rodriguez v. State (2013)
App. 2000); Garcia v. State, 887 S.W.2d 862, 876 (Tex. Crim.
green
Eric Brandon Willberg v. State (2011)
Strickland, 466 U.S. at 689 ; Garcia v. State, 887 S.W.2d 862, 880 (Tex. Crim.
green
Eric Brandon Willberg v. State (2011)
Strickland , 466 U.S. at 689 ; Garcia v. State , 887 S.W.2d 862, 880 (Tex. Crim.
green
Charles Bennett Brown v. State (2011)
Garcia v. State, 887 S.W.2d 862, 876 (Tex. Crim.
green
Charles Ruth Iii v. State (2011)
App. 2001) (citing Garcia v. State, 887 S.W.2d 862, 878 (Tex. Crim.
green
Christopher McGee v. State (2011)
Garcia v. State, 887 S.W.2d 862, 876 (Tex. Crim.
green
McGee v. State (2011)
Garcia v. *248 State, 887 S.W.2d 862, 876 (Tex.Crim.App.1994), overruled on other grounds by Hammock v. State, 46 S.W.3d 889 (Tex.Crim.App.2001) (noting that when an issue is not supported with explanation or argument, it was inadequately briefed).
green
Christopher McGee v. State (2011)
Garcia v. State, 887 S.W.2d 862, 876 (Tex. Crim.
green
Ramiro Trevino v. State (2009)
“Failure to make the required showing of either deficient performance or sufficient prejudice defeats the ineffectiveness claim.” Strickland, 466 U.S. at 700 ; see Thompson, 9 S.W.3d at 813 ; Garcia v. State, 887 S.W.2d 862, 880 (Tex. Crim.
green
in the Interest of D v. Jr., A v. and A v. Children (2009)
Garcia v. State, 887 S.W.2d 862, 875 (Tex.Cr.App. 1994).
green
Michael Akeam Jnlouis v. State (2009)
App. 2001); Garcia v. State , 887 S.W.2d 862, 878 (Tex. Crim.
green
Perry Wayne Russell v. State (2009)
App. 1974) (During the guilt-innocence phase of the trial, appealing to the jury that its job is to determine punishment is "a totally improper line of argument to pursue at the guilt/innocence stage of the proceedings."); see also Garcia v. State , 887 S.W.2d 862, 877 (Tex. Crim.
"Punishment may not be appropriately discussed by either side until and unless the defendant is convicted, i.e., at the punishment phase."
green
Enrique Vasquez v. State (2009)
Garcia v. State , 887 S.W.2d 862, 875 (Tex. Crim.
green
Horace Lee Rogers A/K/A Horace Lee Hood v. State (2009)
Garcia v. State, 887 S.W.2d 862, 880 (Tex.Cr.App. 1994), cert. denied , 514 U.S. 1021 , 115 S.Ct. 1368 , 131 L.Ed.2d 223 (1995).
green
Gilbert Ramirez v. State (2009)
Garcia v. State, 887 S.W.2d 862, 878 (Tex. Crim.
green
Gilbert Ramirez v. State (2009)
Garcia v. State , 887 S.W.2d 862, 878 (Tex. Crim.
green
BNSF Railroad Company, F/K/A the Burlington Northern and Santa Fe Railroad Company v. Homer \Gene\" Heath" (2008)
App. P. 38.1( i ). Â Â If none is provided, then the topic is inadequately briefed and, therefore, waived. Â Â Garcia v. State, 887 S.W.2d 862, 876 (Tex. Crim.
green
Don Brooks, Jr. v. State (2008)
Garcia v. State, 887 S.W.2d 862, 880 (Tex.Cr.App. 1994), cert. denied , 514 U.S. 1021 , 115 S.Ct. 1368 , 131 L.Ed.2d 223 (1995).
green
Koree Dawn Edwards v. State (2007)
Garcia v. State, 887 S.W.2d 862, 880 (Tex.Cr.App. 1994), cert. denied, 514 U.S. 1021 , 115 S.Ct. 1368 , 131 L.Ed.2d 223 (1995).
green
Lidge Henry Tidwell, Jr. v. State (2007)
App. P. 38.1(h); Garcia v. State , 887 S.W.2d 862, 871 (Tex. Crim.
Garcia v. State, 887 S.W.2d 862, 880 (Tex.Cr.App. 1994), cert. denied , 514 U.S. 1021 , 115 S.Ct. 1368 , 131 L.Ed.2d 223 (1995).
green
Byron Davis v. State (2005)
App. 2001) (“As we previously stated, however, K.H.'s testimony was admitted for all purposes because appellant failed to request a limiting instruction when the evidence was admitted.”); Garcia v. State , 887 S.W.2d 862, 878 (Tex. Crim.
“Appellant further ignores that once evidence is received without a proper limiting instruction, it becomes part of the general evidence in the case and may be used as proof to the full extent of its rational persuasive power.”