section 19 due course of law in Texas

1997Harris v. State, 522 S.W.2d 199, 202 (Tex.Crim.App.1975).

1982Harris v. State, 522 S.W.2d 199, 202 (Tex.Cr.App.1975).

2022Our recent decision in Patel v. Texas Department of Licensing and Regulation endorsed this view, with a caveat: “[T]he Texas due course of law protections in Article I, § 19, for the most part, align with the protections found in the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.” 469 S.W.3d 69, 86 (Tex. 2015).

2018See, e.g., Patel, 469 S.W.3d at 86 (“Following the lead of our prior jurisprudence, we conclude that the Texas due course of law protections in Article I, § 19, for the most part, align with the protections found in the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.”); Hearts Bluff, 381 S.W.3d at 477 (“Our case law on takings under the Texas Constitution is consistent with federal jurisprudence.”).

2015See Therefore, an indictment which fails to name "a Adams v. Texas, 707 S.W.2d 900 (Tex.Crim.App. 1986). person" is not an indictment under the Texas Constitution and its validity may be challenged on appeal even if no 2 This language may well have been timely objection under Article 1.14(b) to it was made successfully challenged via a timely motion to before the date on which appellant's trial commenced. quash under Article 1.14(b) as being defective.

1997See Adams v. Texas, 707 S.W.2d 900 (Tex.Crim.App.1986).

2010(Do Not Publish) 2 “[D]enying credit for [time served pending a revocation hearing] pursuant to § 15 might ‘chill the parolee's decision to exercise his constitutional right to a pre-revocation hearing’ . . . and consequently violate the parolee’s right of due course of law under Article I, § 19, of the Texas Constitution.” Id. at 577, citing Ex parte Canada, 754 S.W.2d 660, 667 (Tex.Crim.App. 1988). -3-

1998In Ex Parte Canada, 754 S.W.2d 660 (Tex.Cr.App. 1988), the Court held that former Article 42.18, section 15(a) (1) of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure Annotated, as it related to discretion to grant or deny credit for time served to a parolee confined pursuant to a pre-revocation warrant, violated the parolee's due course of law under Article I, section 19 of the Texas Constitution. (2) The Court analogized the relationship between a jailed defendant awaiting a hearing on revocation with that of a jailed defendant's right to appeal his conviction and reasoned that the availability of discr

2018See, e.g., Patel, 469 S.W.3d at 86 (“Following the lead of our prior jurisprudence, we conclude that the Texas due course of law protections in Article I, § 19, for the most part, align with the protections found in the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.”); Hearts Bluff, 381 S.W.3d at 477 (“Our case law on takings under the Texas Constitution is consistent with federal jurisprudence.”).

2013GOV ’T CODE § 508.253 (emphasis added). 4 Boykin v. State, 818 S.W.2d 782, 785 (Tex. Crim.

2010Because we are remanding this case to the court of appeals to analyze the purported jury verdict form error under Almanza, we need not address appellant's fourth ground for review. [2] Almanza v. State, 686 S.W.2d 157 (Tex. Crim.App.1985). [3] Jennings v. State, 275 S.W.3d 574, 575 (Tex. App.-Amarillo 2008) (because appellant failed to request a verdict form that would allow the jury to find her "not guilty" of the lesser-included offense for which she was convicted, she waived the complaint on appeal). [4] Jennings, 275 S.W.3d at 575 . [5] Id. at 575 n. 1. [6] TEX.CODE CRIM.

2010Because we are remanding this case to the court of appeals to analyze the purported jury verdict form error under Almanza, we need not address appellant's fourth ground for review. [2] Almanza v. State, 686 S.W.2d 157 (Tex. Crim.App.1985). [3] Jennings v. State, 275 S.W.3d 574, 575 (Tex. App.-Amarillo 2008) (because appellant failed to request a verdict form that would allow the jury to find her "not guilty" of the lesser-included offense for which she was convicted, she waived the complaint on appeal). [4] Jennings, 275 S.W.3d at 575 . [5] Id. at 575 n. 1. [6] TEX.CODE CRIM.

2003See, e.g. , Luquis , 72 S.W.3d at 364 (parole instruction as sanctioned in Article 37.07(4)(a) does not violate the due course of law provisions in Article I, section 19 of the Texas Constitution nor the federal constitution = s due process clause); Washington , 59 S.W.3d at 266-67 (mandatory charge prescribed by Article 37.07, ' 4(b) does not violate right to due process and due course of law under the United States and Texas Constitutions); Hawkins v. State , 807 S.W.2d 874, 876 ( Tex.App .--Beaumont 1991, pet. ref = d)(upholding the constitutionality of Article 37.07(4)(b) charge).

2002Ex parte Adams , 768 S.W.2d 281, 293 (Tex. Crim.

1996See Dinkins v. State, 894 S.W.2d 330, 363 (Tex. Cr.App.1995) (Clinton, J., dissenting) (when all similarly situated capital murder defendants are treated the same, there simply is no colorable equal protection claim). [11] *229 VI Applicant also contends various provisions of Article 11.071 violate the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution and the due course of law provisions of Article 1, Section 19, of the Texas Constitution.

1996See Dinkins v. State, 894 S.W.2d 330, 363 (Tex. Cr.App.1995) (Clinton, J., dissenting) (when all similarly situated capital murder defendants are treated the same, there simply is no colorable equal protection claim). 11 VI Applicant also contends various provisions of Article 11.071 violate the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution and the due course of law provisions of Article 1, Section 19, of the Texas Constitution.

1995Long v. State, 742 S.W.2d 302, 319 (Tex.Crim.App.1987), overruled on other grounds, Briggs v. State, 789 S.W.2d 918, 921-22 (Tex.Crim.App.1990).

1995Long v. State, 742 S.W.2d 302, 319 (Tex.Crim.App.1987), overruled on other grounds, Briggs v. State, 789 S.W.2d 918, 921-22 (Tex.Crim.App.1990).

1994The open courts provision provides: “All courts shall be open, and every person for an injury done him, in his lands, goods, person or reputation, shall have remedy by due course of law.” The provision is one of the two due course of law provisions of our Constitution, the other being the due course of law provision of Article I, § 19. 3 Due course of law, as used in Section 19, has traditionally been viewed as co-extensive with the United States Constitution’s due process of law guarantee. 4 See Mellinger v. City of Houston, 68 Tex. 37 , 3 S.W. 249, 252-53 (1887); In re Estate of Touring, 775

1994The open courts provision provides: “All courts shall be open, and every person for an injury done him, in his lands, goods, person or reputation, shall have remedy by due course of law.” The provision is one of the two due course of law provisions of our Constitution, the other being the due course of law provision of Article I, § 19. 3 Due course of law, as used in Section 19, has traditionally been viewed as co-extensive with the United States Constitution’s due process of law guarantee. 4 See Mellinger v. City of Houston, 68 Tex. 37 , 3 S.W. 249, 252-53 (1887); In re Estate of Touring, 775

1994The open courts provision provides: "All courts shall be open, and every person for an injury done him, in his lands, goods, person or reputation, shall have remedy by due course of law." The provision is one of the two due course of law provisions of our Constitution, the other being the due course *56 of law provision of Article I, § 19. [3] Due course of law, as used in Section 19, has traditionally been viewed as co-extensive with the United States Constitution's due process of law guarantee. [4] See Mellinger v. City of Houston, 68 Tex. 37 , 3 S.W. 249, 252-53 (1887); In re Estate of Tour

1994The open courts provision provides: “All courts shall be open, and every person for an injury done him, in his lands, goods, person or reputation, shall have remedy by due course of law.” The provision is one of the two due course of law provisions of our Constitution, the other being the due course of law provision of Article I, § 19. 3 Due course of law, as used in Section 19, has traditionally been viewed as co-extensive with the United States Constitution’s due process of law guarantee. 4 See Mellinger v. City of Houston, 68 Tex. 37 , 3 S.W. 249, 252-53 (1887); In re Estate of Touring, 775

1994Co. v. Texas State Bd. of Ins., 685 S.W.2d 104, 113-14 (Tex.App.—Austin 1985, no writ).

1994Co. v. Texas State Bd. of Ins., 685 S.W.2d 104, 113-14 (Tex.App.—Austin 1985, no writ).