28 Texas opinions name it 3 courts 1970–2026 2 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 |
|---|---|---|
Collins v. Stategreen2 sentences2015Collins v. State, 240 S.W.3d 925, 929 (Tex. Crim. 2015Collins v. State, 240 S.W.3d 925, 929 (Tex. Crim. | 4 | 5 |
Flowers v. Stategreen2 sentences2004Flowers v. State , 951 S.W.2d 883, 885 (Tex.App.-San Antonio 1997, no pet.). 2004Flowers v. State, 951 S.W.2d 883, 885 (Tex.App.–San Antonio 1997, no pet.). | 4 | 4 |
Smith v. Stategreen2 sentences2011Here, because nothing in the record supports a claim that Gullett was not advised by counsel of his right to file a motion for new trial, we “hold that appellant has failed to overcome the presumption that he was adequately represented by counsel during the time for filing a motion for new trial.” Smith, 17 S.W.3d 660 ; see Castillo v. State, 186 S.W.3d 21, 31 (Tex. App.––Corpus Christi 2005, pet. ref’d) (citing Hudson v. State, 128 S.W.3d 367, 381 (Tex. App.––Texarkana 2004, no pet.) (“There is no evidence in the record that Hudson was interested in the option of filing a motion for new trial 2003Here, because nothing in the record supports a claim that Gullett was not advised by counsel of his right to file a motion for new trial, we hold that appellant has failed to overcome the presumption that he was adequately represented by counsel during the time for filing a motion for new trial. Smith , 17 S.W.3d 660 ; see Castillo v. State , 186 S.W.3d 21, 31 (Tex. App.Corpus Christi 2005, pet. refd) (citing Hudson v. State , 128 S.W.3d 367, 381 (Tex. App.Texarkana 2004, no pet.) (There is no evidence in the record that Hudson was interested in the option of filing a motion for new tr | 2 | 4 |
Breazeale v. Stategreen2 sentences2020See Breazeale, 683 S.W.2d at 450–51; Lincoln, 307 S.W.3d at 923–24; Harvey, 605 S.W.3d at 816. 2020See Breazeale, 683 S.W.2d at 450–51; Lincoln, 307 S.W.3d at 923–24; Harvey, 605 S.W.3d at 816. | 2 | 2 |
Castillo v. Stategreen2 sentences2011Here, because nothing in the record supports a claim that Gullett was not advised by counsel of his right to file a motion for new trial, we “hold that appellant has failed to overcome the presumption that he was adequately represented by counsel during the time for filing a motion for new trial.” Smith, 17 S.W.3d 660 ; see Castillo v. State, 186 S.W.3d 21, 31 (Tex. App.––Corpus Christi 2005, pet. ref’d) (citing Hudson v. State, 128 S.W.3d 367, 381 (Tex. App.––Texarkana 2004, no pet.) (“There is no evidence in the record that Hudson was interested in the option of filing a motion for new trial 2003Here, because nothing in the record supports a claim that Gullett was not advised by counsel of his right to file a motion for new trial, we hold that appellant has failed to overcome the presumption that he was adequately represented by counsel during the time for filing a motion for new trial. Smith , 17 S.W.3d 660 ; see Castillo v. State , 186 S.W.3d 21, 31 (Tex. App.Corpus Christi 2005, pet. refd) (citing Hudson v. State , 128 S.W.3d 367, 381 (Tex. App.Texarkana 2004, no pet.) (There is no evidence in the record that Hudson was interested in the option of filing a motion for new tr | 2 | 2 |
Hudson v. Stategreen2 sentences2011Here, because nothing in the record supports a claim that Gullett was not advised by counsel of his right to file a motion for new trial, we “hold that appellant has failed to overcome the presumption that he was adequately represented by counsel during the time for filing a motion for new trial.” Smith, 17 S.W.3d 660 ; see Castillo v. State, 186 S.W.3d 21, 31 (Tex. App.––Corpus Christi 2005, pet. ref’d) (citing Hudson v. State, 128 S.W.3d 367, 381 (Tex. App.––Texarkana 2004, no pet.) (“There is no evidence in the record that Hudson was interested in the option of filing a motion for new trial 2003Here, because nothing in the record supports a claim that Gullett was not advised by counsel of his right to file a motion for new trial, we hold that appellant has failed to overcome the presumption that he was adequately represented by counsel during the time for filing a motion for new trial. Smith , 17 S.W.3d 660 ; see Castillo v. State , 186 S.W.3d 21, 31 (Tex. App.Corpus Christi 2005, pet. refd) (citing Hudson v. State , 128 S.W.3d 367, 381 (Tex. App.Texarkana 2004, no pet.) (There is no evidence in the record that Hudson was interested in the option of filing a motion for new tr | 2 | 2 |
Ford v. Stategreen2 sentences2010See id. 2009See id. | 2 | 2 |
De La Paz v. Stategreen2 sentences2026See Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 37.02 (a)(1); see also De La Paz v. State, 279 S.W.3d 336, 344 (Tex. Crim. 2026See Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 37.02 (a)(1); see also De La Paz, 279 S.W.3d at 344 . | 1 | 1 |
Benavides v. Stategreen1 sentence2024See Benavides v. State, 992 S.W.2d 511, 525 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1999, pet. ref’d). 18 overcome the presumption of effective professional assistance, an appellant’s claim must be firmly grounded in the record, and the record must affirmatively demonstrate the alleged ineffectiveness. | 1 | 1 |
Pandozy v. Shamisgreen1 sentence2019Pandozy v. Shamis, 254 S.W.3d 596, 601 (Tex. App.— Texarkana 2008, no pet.). | 1 | 1 |
Branum v. Stategreen1 sentence2018See Branum, 535 S.W.3d at 226 ; Martinez, 131 S.W.3d at 29 . | 1 | 1 |
Ex Parte Olivaresgreen1 sentence2010Collins , 240 S.W.3d at 929 (citing Ex parte Olivares , 202 S.W.3d 771, 772-73 (Tex. Crim. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Texas. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Lincoln v. State
green
2 sentences2020See Breazeale, 683 S.W.2d at 450–51; Lincoln, 307 S.W.3d at 923–24; Harvey, 605 S.W.3d at 816. 2020See Breazeale, 683 S.W.2d at 450–51; Lincoln, 307 S.W.3d at 923–24; Harvey, 605 S.W.3d at 816. | 2 | 2020–2020 |
Batson v. Kentucky
green
2 sentences2015Appellant submits that the record supports the claim that the State violated the equal protection clause of the United States Constitution when it used its peremptory strikes against potential jurors Syrene Mitchell, Louise Horsley and Freddie Watson in a racially discriminatory manner contrary to the holding of Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U. S. 79 , 106 S. C. 1712, 90 L. 2015Appellant submits that the record supports the claim that the State violated the equal protection clause of the United States Constitution when it used its peremptory strikes against potential jurors Syrene Mitchell, Louise Horsley and Freddie Watson in a racially discriminatory manner contrary to the holding of Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U. S. 79 , 106 S. C. 1712, 90 L. | 2 | 2012–2015 |
Charles v. State
red
2 sentences2005Moreover, the trial court has “discretion to discount factual assertions in an affidavit by an interested party.” Charles , 146 S.W.3d at 210 . 2005Moreover, the trial court has “discretion to discount factual assertions in an affidavit by an interested party.” Charles, 146 S.W.3d at 210 . | 2 | 2005–2005 |
Martinez v. State
green
1 sentence2018See Branum, 535 S.W.3d at 226 ; Martinez, 131 S.W.3d at 29 . | 1 | 2018–2018 |
Rice v. State
green
1 sentence2015Rice, 333 S.W.3d at 144 ; Rousseau, 855 S.W.2d at 672-73 . | 1 | 2015–2015 |
Rousseau v. State
green
1 sentence2015Rice, 333 S.W.3d at 144 ; Rousseau, 855 S.W.2d at 672-73 . | 1 | 2015–2015 |
Benson v. State
green
1 sentence2009See Smith v. State, 17 S.W.3d 660, 662-63 (Tex.Crim.App.2000); Benson, 224 S.W.3d at 498 . | 1 | 2009–2009 |
North East Independent School District v. Aldridge
green
1 sentence1977North East Independent School District v. Aldridge, supra; Nickel v. Snider, 484 S.W.2d 940 (Tex.Civ.App.—Corpus Christi 1972, writ ref’d n.r.e.). | 1 | 1977–1977 |
Nickel v. Snider
green
1 sentence1977North East Independent School District v. Aldridge, supra; Nickel v. Snider, 484 S.W.2d 940 (Tex.Civ.App.—Corpus Christi 1972, writ ref’d n.r.e.). | 1 | 1977–1977 |
Milligan v. State
green
2 sentences1970In Milligan v. State, 168 Tex.Cr.R. 202 , 324 S.W.2d 864 , this Court stated: “Having pleaded to the indictment without making any objection to the fact that he had not been served with a copy of the indictment, appellant’s complaint after judgment, in his motion for new trial, to such failure came too late.” See 1 Branch’s Ann.P.C., 2d ed., Sec. 536, p. 514. 1970In Milligan v. State, 168 Tex.Cr.R. 202 , 324 S.W.2d 864 , this Court stated: “Having pleaded to the indictment without making any objection to the fact that he had not been served with a copy of the indictment, appellant’s complaint after judgment, in his motion for new trial, to such failure came too late.” See 1 Branch’s Ann.P.C., 2d ed., Sec. 536, p. 514. | 1 | 1970–1970 |
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.
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.