Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
15 Texas opinions name it 2 courts 2000–2020 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Texas courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Gibson v. Stategreen2 sentences2020The indictment alleged that Applicant’s present DWI was a felony because of the existence of two prior DWI convictions that were alleged to have occurred on November 10, 1999. 8 On its face, it alleged a felony offense under Section 49.09(b)(2) of the Penal Code. 9 Thus, the indictment was sufficient to vest the 8 This Court has held that Section 49.09(b) (pertaining to enhancement of a DWI to felony status) “does not require the State to prove the prior convictions occurred sequentially.” Gibson v. State, 995 S.W.2d 693, 697 (Tex. Crim. 2019Gibson, 995 S.W.2d at 696 (explaining that “prior intoxication-related convictions serve the purpose of enhancing the offense in Section 49.09(b), whereas prior convictions used in Section 12.42(d) serve the purpose of enhancing punishment”). | 2 | 4 |
Barfield v. Stategreen2 sentences2001Id. 2000See Penal Code § 49.09(b); Barfield v. State , 999 S.W.2d 23, 25 (Tex. App.--Houston [14th Dist.] 1999, pet. granted); Jimenez v. State , 981 S.W.2d 393, 396 (Tex. App.--San Antonio 1998, pet. ref'd); see also Pope v. State , 802 S.W.2d 418, 421 (Tex. App.--Austin 1991, no pet.). | 2 | 3 |
Martin v. Stategreen2 sentences2006Id.; see also Martin v. State, 84 S.W.3d 267, 268-69 (Tex.App.-Beaumont 2002, pet. refd). 2006Id .; see also Martin v. State , 84 S.W.3d 267 , 268 B 69 (Tex. App. C Beaumont 2002, pet. ref = d). | 2 | 2 |
Renshaw v. Stategreen2 sentences2002See Rodriguez v. State , 31 S.W.3d 359, 364 (Tex. App.--San Antonio 2000, pet. ref'd) (holding that the State must prove an intervening conviction under section 49.09(e)(2) before a remote conviction may be used to enhance an offense under section 49.09(b)); Smith , 1 S.W.3d at 263 (holding that the statute requires the State to prove one prior DWI conviction in the ten-year period); Renshaw v. State , 981 S.W.2d 464, 466 (Tex. App.--Texarkana 1998, pet. ref'd). 2002See Rodriguez v. State, 31 S.W.3d 359, 364 (Tex.App.-San Antonio 2000, pet. ref'd) (holding that the State must prove an intervening conviction under section 49.09(e)(2) before a remote conviction may be used to enhance an offense under section 49.09(b)); Smith, 1 S.W.3d at 263 (holding that the statute requires the State to prove one prior DWI conviction in the ten-year period); Renshaw v. State, 981 S.W.2d 464, 466 (Tex.App.-Texarkana 1998, pet. ref'd). | 2 | 2 |
Smith v. Stategreen2 sentences2002See Rodriguez v. State , 31 S.W.3d 359, 364 (Tex. App.--San Antonio 2000, pet. ref'd) (holding that the State must prove an intervening conviction under section 49.09(e)(2) before a remote conviction may be used to enhance an offense under section 49.09(b)); Smith , 1 S.W.3d at 263 (holding that the statute requires the State to prove one prior DWI conviction in the ten-year period); Renshaw v. State , 981 S.W.2d 464, 466 (Tex. App.--Texarkana 1998, pet. ref'd). 2002See Rodriguez v. State, 31 S.W.3d 359, 364 (Tex.App.-San Antonio 2000, pet. ref'd) (holding that the State must prove an intervening conviction under section 49.09(e)(2) before a remote conviction may be used to enhance an offense under section 49.09(b)); Smith, 1 S.W.3d at 263 (holding that the statute requires the State to prove one prior DWI conviction in the ten-year period); Renshaw v. State, 981 S.W.2d 464, 466 (Tex.App.-Texarkana 1998, pet. ref'd). | 2 | 2 |
Rodriguez v. Stategreen2 sentences2002See Rodriguez v. State , 31 S.W.3d 359, 364 (Tex. App.--San Antonio 2000, pet. ref'd) (holding that the State must prove an intervening conviction under section 49.09(e)(2) before a remote conviction may be used to enhance an offense under section 49.09(b)); Smith , 1 S.W.3d at 263 (holding that the statute requires the State to prove one prior DWI conviction in the ten-year period); Renshaw v. State , 981 S.W.2d 464, 466 (Tex. App.--Texarkana 1998, pet. ref'd). 2002See Rodriguez v. State, 31 S.W.3d 359, 364 (Tex.App.-San Antonio 2000, pet. ref'd) (holding that the State must prove an intervening conviction under section 49.09(e)(2) before a remote conviction may be used to enhance an offense under section 49.09(b)); Smith, 1 S.W.3d at 263 (holding that the statute requires the State to prove one prior DWI conviction in the ten-year period); Renshaw v. State, 981 S.W.2d 464, 466 (Tex.App.-Texarkana 1998, pet. ref'd). | 2 | 2 |
Pope v. Stategreen2 sentences2000See Penal Code § 49.09(b); Barfield v. State, 999 S.W.2d 23, 25 (Tex.App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1999, pet. granted); Jimenez v. State, 981 S.W.2d 893 , 396 (Tex.App.—San Antonio 1998, pet. ref'd); see also Pope v. State, 802 S.W.2d 418, 421 (Tex.App. — Austin 1991, no pet.). 2000See Penal Code § 49.09(b); Barfield v. State , 999 S.W.2d 23, 25 (Tex. App.--Houston [14th Dist.] 1999, pet. granted); Jimenez v. State , 981 S.W.2d 393, 396 (Tex. App.--San Antonio 1998, pet. ref'd); see also Pope v. State , 802 S.W.2d 418, 421 (Tex. App.--Austin 1991, no pet.). | 2 | 2 |
Bell v. Stategreen1 sentence2016Accordingly, the February 25, 2000 conviction for felony DWI was an offense under section 49.04 of the penal code, enhanced to a felony of the third degree under section 49.09 by two prior convictions for DWI, see Bell v. State, 201 S.W.3d 708, 709 (Tex. Crim. | 1 | 1 |
Tietz v. Stategreen1 sentence2012Applying the law to the facts before us, while it is true that the elements of the instant primary DWI offense had to have occurred after the two sequential convictions relied on in the habitual offender paragraphs for Appellant’s sentence to be enhanced under section 12.42(d), the dates of the jurisdictional priors, or offense-enhancing convictions, used to enhance Appellant’s instant primary DWI offense to a felony under section 49.09(b)(2) are not elements of that primary offenses that were jurisdictional elements of the crime at issue); see also Goode v. State, No. 02-10-00465-CR, 2011 WL | 1 | 1 |
Vanderhorst v. Stategreen1 sentence2012Applying the law to the facts before us, while it is true that the elements of the instant primary DWI offense had to have occurred after the two sequential convictions relied on in the habitual offender paragraphs for Appellant’s sentence to be enhanced under section 12.42(d), the dates of the jurisdictional priors, or offense-enhancing convictions, used to enhance Appellant’s instant primary DWI offense to a felony under section 49.09(b)(2) are not elements of that primary offenses that were jurisdictional elements of the crime at issue); see also Goode v. State, No. 02-10-00465-CR, 2011 WL | 1 | 1 |
State v. Masongreen1 sentence2012Applying the law to the facts before us, while it is true that the elements of the instant primary DWI offense had to have occurred after the two sequential convictions relied on in the habitual offender paragraphs for Appellant’s sentence to be enhanced under section 12.42(d), the dates of the jurisdictional priors, or offense-enhancing convictions, used to enhance Appellant’s instant primary DWI offense to a felony under section 49.09(b)(2) are not elements of that primary offenses that were jurisdictional elements of the crime at issue); see also Goode v. State, No. 02-10-00465-CR, 2011 WL | 1 | 1 |
Ex Parte Serratogreen1 sentence2002Ex parte Serrato, 3 S.W.3d 41, 43 (Tex.Crim.App.1999); accord Williamson v. State, 46 S.W.3d 463, 466-67 (Tex.App.-Dallas 2001, no pet.). | 1 | 1 |
Williamson v. Stategreen1 sentence2002Ex parte Serrato, 3 S.W.3d 41, 43 (Tex.Crim.App.1999); accord Williamson v. State, 46 S.W.3d 463, 466-67 (Tex.App.-Dallas 2001, no pet.). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Kindredgreen1 sentence2001To support his claim, appellant relies on State v. Kindred, 773 S.W.2d 766, 768 (Tex.App.—Corpus Christi 1989, no pet.), which in turn relied on Savant v. State, 535 S.W.2d 190 (Tex.Crim.App.1976). | 1 | 1 |
Jimenez v. Stategreen1 sentence2000See Penal Code § 49.09(b); Barfield v. State , 999 S.W.2d 23, 25 (Tex. App.--Houston [14th Dist.] 1999, pet. granted); Jimenez v. State , 981 S.W.2d 393, 396 (Tex. App.--San Antonio 1998, pet. ref'd); see also Pope v. State , 802 S.W.2d 418, 421 (Tex. App.--Austin 1991, no pet.). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Texas. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
State v. Webb
green
2 sentences2003The second lies with the fact that the legislature has expressly made a distinction between “enhancement” of offenses under § 49.09(a) or (b), and “enhancement under Subchapter D, Chapter 12.” See Tex. Pen.Code Ann. § 49.09(g) (Vernon 2003). 6 See also State v. Webb, 12 S.W.3d 808 , 811 n. 2 (Tex.Crim.App.2000). 2003The second lies with the fact that the legislature has expressly made a distinction between "enhancement" of offenses under § 49.09(a) or (b), and "enhancement under Subchapter D, Chapter 12." See Tex. Pen.Code Ann. § 49.09(g) (Vernon 2003). [6] See also State v. Webb, 12 S.W.3d 808 , 811 n. 2 (Tex.Crim.App.2000). *514 In Weaver v. State, 87 S.W.3d 557 (Tex.Crim.App.2002), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 123 S.Ct. 1491 , 155 L.Ed.2d 234 , 71 U.S.L.W. 3577 (2003), the issue was whether an "intervening conviction" is an essential element of felony DWI where the State's only intoxication-related conv | 2 | 2003–2003 |
Weaver v. State
green
2 sentences2003In Weaver v. State, 87 S.W.3d 557 (Tex.Crim.App.2002), cer t. denied, — U.S. -, 123 S.Ct. 1491 , 155 L.Ed.2d 234 , 71 U.S.L.W. 3577 (2003), the issue was whether an “intervening conviction” is an essential element of felony DWI where the State’s only intoxication-related convictions alleged in the indictment were more than ten years older than the instant offense. 2003The second lies with the fact that the legislature has expressly made a distinction between "enhancement" of offenses under § 49.09(a) or (b), and "enhancement under Subchapter D, Chapter 12." See Tex. Pen.Code Ann. § 49.09(g) (Vernon 2003). [6] See also State v. Webb, 12 S.W.3d 808 , 811 n. 2 (Tex.Crim.App.2000). *514 In Weaver v. State, 87 S.W.3d 557 (Tex.Crim.App.2002), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 123 S.Ct. 1491 , 155 L.Ed.2d 234 , 71 U.S.L.W. 3577 (2003), the issue was whether an "intervening conviction" is an essential element of felony DWI where the State's only intoxication-related conv | 1 | 2003–2003 |
Weaver v. Texas
green
2 sentences2003In Weaver v. State, 87 S.W.3d 557 (Tex.Crim.App.2002), cer t. denied, — U.S. -, 123 S.Ct. 1491 , 155 L.Ed.2d 234 , 71 U.S.L.W. 3577 (2003), the issue was whether an “intervening conviction” is an essential element of felony DWI where the State’s only intoxication-related convictions alleged in the indictment were more than ten years older than the instant offense. 2003The second lies with the fact that the legislature has expressly made a distinction between "enhancement" of offenses under § 49.09(a) or (b), and "enhancement under Subchapter D, Chapter 12." See Tex. Pen.Code Ann. § 49.09(g) (Vernon 2003). [6] See also State v. Webb, 12 S.W.3d 808 , 811 n. 2 (Tex.Crim.App.2000). *514 In Weaver v. State, 87 S.W.3d 557 (Tex.Crim.App.2002), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 123 S.Ct. 1491 , 155 L.Ed.2d 234 , 71 U.S.L.W. 3577 (2003), the issue was whether an "intervening conviction" is an essential element of felony DWI where the State's only intoxication-related conv | 1 | 2003–2003 |
Savant v. State
green
1 sentence2001To support his claim, appellant relies on State v. Kindred, 773 S.W.2d 766, 768 (Tex.App.—Corpus Christi 1989, no pet.), which in turn relied on Savant v. State, 535 S.W.2d 190 (Tex.Crim.App.1976). | 1 | 2001–2001 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.