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.
22 Texas opinions name it 3 courts 2005–2020 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 |
|---|---|---|
Apprendi v. New Jerseygreen2 sentences2019Id. (“Other than the fact of a prior conviction, any fact that increases the penalty for a crime beyond the prescribed statutory maximum must be submitted to a jury, and proved beyond a reasonable doubt.”); Williams v. State, No. 10-09-00227-CR, 2010 WL 2010916 , at *1 (Tex. App.—Waco May 12, 2010, pet. ref’d) (mem. op., not designated for publication) (noting Apprendi’s exception of prior convictions from facts which must be submitted to the jury and proven beyond a reasonable doubt). 2005As to appellant’s Apprendi-Blakely-Ring complaint, “[t]he federal appellate courts have uniformly rejected the contention that Apprendi is violated when a trial court orders the cumulation of sentences which individually lie within the statutory range of punishment but for which the cumulative total exceeds the prescribed statutory maximum for any single offense.” Marrow v. State , No. 10-04-00104-CR, 2005 WL 1405704, at *2 (Tex. App.—Waco June 15, 2005, pet. filed) (holding that no Apprendi violation shown when trial court cumulated sentences for aggravated sexual assault and indecency with a | 8 | 8 |
Marrow v. Stategreen2 sentences2015We hold that due process does not require that the jury be given information about the trial court’s ability to cumulate sentences or order them to run concurrently.” Id.; see Marrow v. State, 169 S.W.3d 328, 330-31 (Tex. App.— Waco 2005, pet. ref’d); see also Lacy v. State, Nos. 14-05-00775-CR, 14-05-00776-Cr, 14-05- 00777-CR, 14-05-00778-CR, 2006 Tex. App. LEXIS 8723 , at *6 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] Oct. 10, 2006, no pet.) (mem. op., not designated for publication) (“As such, contrary to appellant’s assertion, the trial court’s authority to cumulate the aggravated sexual assault sente 2006However, both federal and state courts have consistently found no Apprendi violation where A a trial court orders the cumulation of sentences which individually lie within the statutory range of punishment but for which the cumulative total exceeds the prescribed statutory maximum for any single offense . @ Baylor , 195 S.W.3d at 160 (emphasis added); see, e.g. , United States v. McWaine , 290 F.3d 269, 276 (5th Cir. 2002); Tyson v. State , 172 S.W.3d 172 , 176 B 77 (Tex. App. C Fort Worth 2005, pet. ref = d); Marrow v. State , 169 S.W.3d 328 , 330 B 31 (Tex. App. C Waco 2005, pet. ref = d); s | 5 | 7 |
United States v. McWainegreen2 sentences2006However, both federal and state courts have consistently found no Apprendi violation where A a trial court orders the cumulation of sentences which individually lie within the statutory range of punishment but for which the cumulative total exceeds the prescribed statutory maximum for any single offense . @ Baylor , 195 S.W.3d at 160 (emphasis added); see, e.g. , United States v. McWaine , 290 F.3d 269, 276 (5th Cir. 2002); Tyson v. State , 172 S.W.3d 172 , 176 B 77 (Tex. App. C Fort Worth 2005, pet. ref = d); Marrow v. State , 169 S.W.3d 328 , 330 B 31 (Tex. App. C Waco 2005, pet. ref = d); s 2005As to appellant’s Apprendi-Blakely-Ring complaint, “[t]he federal appellate courts have uniformly rejected the contention that Apprendi is violated when a trial court orders the cumulation of sentences which individually lie within the statutory range of punishment but for which the cumulative total exceeds the prescribed statutory maximum for any single offense.” Marrow v. State , No. 10-04-00104-CR, 2005 WL 1405704, at *2 (Tex. App.—Waco June 15, 2005, pet. filed) (holding that no Apprendi violation shown when trial court cumulated sentences for aggravated sexual assault and indecency with a | 5 | 5 |
Baylor v. Stategreen2 sentences2015We hold that due process does not require that the jury be given information about the trial court's ability to cumulate sentences or order them to run concurrently." Id.; see Marrow v. State, 169S.W.3d 328, 330-31 (Tex. App.— Waco 2005, pet ref'd); see also Lacy v. State, Nos. 14-05-00775-CR, 14-05-00776-Cr, 14-05- 00777-CR, 14-05-00778-CR, 2006 Tex. App. LEXIS 8723 , at *6 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] Oct. 10, 2006, no pet.) (mem. op., not designated for publication) ("As such, contrary to appellant's assertion, the trial court's authority to cumulate the aggravated sexual assault sentenc 2015We hold that due process does not require that the jury be given information about the trial court’s ability to cumulate sentences or order them to run concurrently.” Id.; see Marrow v. State, 169 S.W.3d 328, 330-31 (Tex. App.— Waco 2005, pet. ref’d); see also Lacy v. State, Nos. 14-05-00775-CR, 14-05-00776-Cr, 14-05- 00777-CR, 14-05-00778-CR, 2006 Tex. App. LEXIS 8723 , at *6 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] Oct. 10, 2006, no pet.) (mem. op., not designated for publication) (“As such, contrary to appellant’s assertion, the trial court’s authority to cumulate the aggravated sexual assault sente | 4 | 4 |
Dugan v. Ashcroft, Attorney Generalgreen2 sentences2005As to appellant’s Apprendi-Blakely-Ring complaint, “[t]he federal appellate courts have uniformly rejected the contention that Apprendi is violated when a trial court orders the cumulation of sentences which individually lie within the statutory range of punishment but for which the cumulative total exceeds the prescribed statutory maximum for any single offense.” Marrow v. State , No. 10-04-00104-CR, 2005 WL 1405704, at *2 (Tex. App.—Waco June 15, 2005, pet. filed) (holding that no Apprendi violation shown when trial court cumulated sentences for aggravated sexual assault and indecency with a 2005As to appellant’s Apprendi-Blakely-Ring complaint, “[t]he federal appellate courts have uniformly rejected the contention that Apprendi is violated when a trial court orders the cumulation of sentences which individually lie within the statutory range of punishment but for which the cumulative total exceeds the prescribed statutory maximum for any single offense.” Marrow v. State , No. 10-04-00104-CR, 2005 WL 1405704, at *2 (Tex. App.—Waco June 15, 2005, pet. filed) (holding that no Apprendi violation shown when trial court cumulated sentences for aggravated sexual assault and indecency with a | 3 | 3 |
United States v. Jaja Zambrowski Davis, Morris Ramsey, a.k.a. \Fade\"(amended 5/12/2003)"green2 sentences2005As to appellant’s Apprendi-Blakely-Ring complaint, “[t]he federal appellate courts have uniformly rejected the contention that Apprendi is violated when a trial court orders the cumulation of sentences which individually lie within the statutory range of punishment but for which the cumulative total exceeds the prescribed statutory maximum for any single offense.” Marrow v. State , No. 10-04-00104-CR, 2005 WL 1405704, at *2 (Tex. App.—Waco June 15, 2005, pet. filed) (holding that no Apprendi violation shown when trial court cumulated sentences for aggravated sexual assault and indecency with a 2005As to appellant’s Apprendi-Blakely-Ring complaint, “[t]he federal appellate courts have uniformly rejected the contention that Apprendi is violated when a trial court orders the cumulation of sentences which individually lie within the statutory range of punishment but for which the cumulative total exceeds the prescribed statutory maximum for any single offense.” Marrow v. State , No. 10-04-00104-CR, 2005 WL 1405704, at *2 (Tex. App.—Waco June 15, 2005, pet. filed) (holding that no Apprendi violation shown when trial court cumulated sentences for aggravated sexual assault and indecency with a | 3 | 3 |
United States v. David Chorin A/K/A Charlie David Chorin, United States of America v. Kevin Robert Caden A/K/A Thomas Kimble Kevin Robert Cadengreen2 sentences2005As to appellant’s Apprendi-Blakely-Ring complaint, “[t]he federal appellate courts have uniformly rejected the contention that Apprendi is violated when a trial court orders the cumulation of sentences which individually lie within the statutory range of punishment but for which the cumulative total exceeds the prescribed statutory maximum for any single offense.” Marrow v. State , No. 10-04-00104-CR, 2005 WL 1405704, at *2 (Tex. App.—Waco June 15, 2005, pet. filed) (holding that no Apprendi violation shown when trial court cumulated sentences for aggravated sexual assault and indecency with a 2005As to appellant’s Apprendi-Blakely-Ring complaint, “[t]he federal appellate courts have uniformly rejected the contention that Apprendi is violated when a trial court orders the cumulation of sentences which individually lie within the statutory range of punishment but for which the cumulative total exceeds the prescribed statutory maximum for any single offense.” Marrow v. State , No. 10-04-00104-CR, 2005 WL 1405704, at *2 (Tex. App.—Waco June 15, 2005, pet. filed) (holding that no Apprendi violation shown when trial court cumulated sentences for aggravated sexual assault and indecency with a | 3 | 3 |
Butler v. Stategreen2 sentences2007Finally, both the State and appellant cite cases discussing the Apprendi issue concerning whether the court can properly make certain findings or whether the jury must make certain findings.8 See Butler v. State, 189 S.W.3d 299, 302 (Tex. Crim. 2007Finally, both the State and appellant cite cases discussing the Apprendi issue concerning whether the court can properly make certain findings or whether the jury must make certain findings. (8) See Butler v. State , 189 S.W.3d 299, 302 (Tex. Crim. | 2 | 2 |
State v. Gordongreen2 sentences2006See United States v. Vazquez, 271 F.3d 93, 98-103 (3d Cir.2001) (en banc) (collecting cases from the First, Fifth, Seventh, Eighth, Tenth, Eleventh and District of Columbia Circuits and holding that unobjected-to Apprendi error in failing to submit an enhancement issue to the jury was subject to "plain error” harmless-error review; rejecting defendant’s argument that an Apprendi violation is a structural defect); State v. Gordon, 262 Wis.2d 380 , 663 N.W.2d 765, 776-77 (2003) (collecting cases and stating, “Neder s harmless-error analysis has been applied to Appren- dz-type errors in every sin 2006See United States v. Vazquez, 271 F.3d 93, 98-103 (3d Cir.2001) (en banc) (collecting cases from the First, Fifth, Seventh, Eighth, Tenth, Eleventh and District of Columbia Circuits and holding that unobjected-to Apprendi error in failing to submit an enhancement issue to the jury was subject to "plain error” harmless-error review; rejecting defendant’s argument that an Apprendi violation is a structural defect); State v. Gordon, 262 Wis.2d 380 , 663 N.W.2d 765, 776-77 (2003) (collecting cases and stating, “Neder s harmless-error analysis has been applied to Appren- dz-type errors in every sin | 2 | 2 |
United States v. Alex Vazquezgreen2 sentences2006See United States v. Vazquez, 271 F.3d 93, 98-103 (3d Cir.2001) (en banc) (collecting cases from the First, Fifth, Seventh, Eighth, Tenth, Eleventh and District of Columbia Circuits and holding that unobjected-to Apprendi error in failing to submit an enhancement issue to the jury was subject to "plain error” harmless-error review; rejecting defendant’s argument that an Apprendi violation is a structural defect); State v. Gordon, 262 Wis.2d 380 , 663 N.W.2d 765, 776-77 (2003) (collecting cases and stating, “Neder s harmless-error analysis has been applied to Appren- dz-type errors in every sin 2006See United States v. Vazquez, 271 F.3d 93, 98-103 (3d Cir.2001) (en banc) (collecting cases from the First, Fifth, Seventh, Eighth, Tenth, Eleventh and District of Columbia Circuits and holding that unobjected-to Apprendi error in failing to submit an enhancement issue to the jury was subject to "plain error” harmless-error review; rejecting defendant’s argument that an Apprendi violation is a structural defect); State v. Gordon, 262 Wis.2d 380 , 663 N.W.2d 765, 776-77 (2003) (collecting cases and stating, “Neder s harmless-error analysis has been applied to Appren- dz-type errors in every sin | 2 | 2 |
Scott Hitch v. State of Indianagreen2 sentences2018See S. Union Co. v. U.S., 567 3 See also Hitch v. State, 51 N.E.3d 216, 225 (Ind. 2016) (loss of right to possess firearm is non-punitive part of regulatory regime aimed at protecting public); D’Alessandro v. Pa. State Police, 937 A.2d 404 , 411 n.7 (Pa. 2007) (noting gun restrictions imposed by section 922(g) “are not punitive in purpose or effect” and do not implicate Apprendi due-process concerns). 7 U.S. 343 , 350-51 (2012) (“Where a fine is so insubstantial that the underlying offense is considered ‘petty,’ the Sixth Amendment right of jury trial is not triggered, and no Apprendi issue ar 2018See S. Union Co. v. U.S., 567 3 See also Hitch v. State, 51 N.E.3d 216, 225 (Ind. 2016) (loss of right to possess firearm is non-punitive part of regulatory regime aimed at protecting public); D’Alessandro v. Pa. State Police, 937 A.2d 404 , 411 n.7 (Pa. 2007) (noting gun restrictions imposed by section 922(g) “are not punitive in purpose or effect” and do not implicate Apprendi due-process concerns). 7 U.S. 343 , 350-51 (2012) (“Where a fine is so insubstantial that the underlying offense is considered ‘petty,’ the Sixth Amendment right of jury trial is not triggered, and no Apprendi issue ar | 1 | 1 |
Arteaga-Bonilla v. United Statesgreen1 sentence2005As to appellant’s Apprendi-Blakely-Ring complaint, “[t]he federal appellate courts have uniformly rejected the contention that Apprendi is violated when a trial court orders the cumulation of sentences which individually lie within the statutory range of punishment but for which the cumulative total exceeds the prescribed statutory maximum for any single offense.” Marrow v. State, 169 S.W.3d 328, 330 (Tex.App.-Waco 2005, pet. filed) (holding that no Apprendi violation shown when trial court cumulated sentences for aggravated sexual assault and indecency with a child when appellant did not disp | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Texas. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Niles v. State
green
2 sentences2020The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals then noted that “[b]oth parties on direct appeal recognized Apprendi error—that is jury charge error,” Id. at 569 , and the defendant argued that “‘both sentences are illegal’ because they are outside the maximum punishment for a Class B offense.” Id. at 568 . 2020The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals then noted that “[b]oth parties on direct appeal recognized Apprendi error—that is jury charge error,” Id. at 569 , and the defendant argued that “‘both sentences are illegal’ because they are outside the maximum punishment for a Class B offense.” Id. at 568 . | 3 | 2019–2020 |
Martinez-Medina v. United States
green
2 sentences2005As to appellant’s Apprendi-Blakely-Ring complaint, “[t]he federal appellate courts have uniformly rejected the contention that Apprendi is violated when a trial court orders the cumulation of sentences which individually lie within the statutory range of punishment but for which the cumulative total exceeds the prescribed statutory maximum for any single offense.” Marrow v. State , No. 10-04-00104-CR, 2005 WL 1405704, at *2 (Tex. App.—Waco June 15, 2005, pet. filed) (holding that no Apprendi violation shown when trial court cumulated sentences for aggravated sexual assault and indecency with a 2005As to appellant’s Apprendi-Blakely-Ring complaint, “[t]he federal appellate courts have uniformly rejected the contention that Apprendi is violated when a trial court orders the cumulation of sentences which individually lie within the statutory range of punishment but for which the cumulative total exceeds the prescribed statutory maximum for any single offense.” Marrow v. State , No. 10-04-00104-CR, 2005 WL 1405704, at *2 (Tex. App.—Waco June 15, 2005, pet. filed) (holding that no Apprendi violation shown when trial court cumulated sentences for aggravated sexual assault and indecency with a | 3 | 2005–2005 |
Shaw v. Connecticut General Life Insurance Co.
green
2 sentences2005As to appellant’s Apprendi-Blakely-Ring complaint, “[t]he federal appellate courts have uniformly rejected the contention that Apprendi is violated when a trial court orders the cumulation of sentences which individually lie within the statutory range of punishment but for which the cumulative total exceeds the prescribed statutory maximum for any single offense.” Marrow v. State , No. 10-04-00104-CR, 2005 WL 1405704, at *2 (Tex. App.—Waco June 15, 2005, pet. filed) (holding that no Apprendi violation shown when trial court cumulated sentences for aggravated sexual assault and indecency with a 2005As to appellant’s Apprendi-Blakely-Ring complaint, “[t]he federal appellate courts have uniformly rejected the contention that Apprendi is violated when a trial court orders the cumulation of sentences which individually lie within the statutory range of punishment but for which the cumulative total exceeds the prescribed statutory maximum for any single offense.” Marrow v. State , No. 10-04-00104-CR, 2005 WL 1405704, at *2 (Tex. App.—Waco June 15, 2005, pet. filed) (holding that no Apprendi violation shown when trial court cumulated sentences for aggravated sexual assault and indecency with a | 3 | 2005–2005 |
United States v. John J. Feola
green
2 sentences2005As to appellant’s Apprendi-Blakely-Ring complaint, “[t]he federal appellate courts have uniformly rejected the contention that Apprendi is violated when a trial court orders the cumulation of sentences which individually lie within the statutory range of punishment but for which the cumulative total exceeds the prescribed statutory maximum for any single offense.” Marrow v. State , No. 10-04-00104-CR, 2005 WL 1405704, at *2 (Tex. App.—Waco June 15, 2005, pet. filed) (holding that no Apprendi violation shown when trial court cumulated sentences for aggravated sexual assault and indecency with a 2005As to appellant’s Apprendi-Blakely-Ring complaint, “[t]he federal appellate courts have uniformly rejected the contention that Apprendi is violated when a trial court orders the cumulation of sentences which individually lie within the statutory range of punishment but for which the cumulative total exceeds the prescribed statutory maximum for any single offense.” Marrow v. State , No. 10-04-00104-CR, 2005 WL 1405704, at *2 (Tex. App.—Waco June 15, 2005, pet. filed) (holding that no Apprendi violation shown when trial court cumulated sentences for aggravated sexual assault and indecency with a | 3 | 2005–2005 |
Tyson v. State
green
2 sentences2014See, e.g., United States v. McWaine, 290 F.3d 269, 276 (5th Cir. 2002); Baylor v. State, 195 S.W.3d 157, 160 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2006, no pet.); Tyson v. State, 172 S.W.3d 172 , 176- 77 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2005, pet. ref’d); Marrow v. State, 169 S.W.3d 328, 330-31 (Tex. App.—Waco 2005, pet. ref’d). 2006However, both federal and state courts have consistently found no Apprendi violation where A a trial court orders the cumulation of sentences which individually lie within the statutory range of punishment but for which the cumulative total exceeds the prescribed statutory maximum for any single offense . @ Baylor , 195 S.W.3d at 160 (emphasis added); see, e.g. , United States v. McWaine , 290 F.3d 269, 276 (5th Cir. 2002); Tyson v. State , 172 S.W.3d 172 , 176 B 77 (Tex. App. C Fort Worth 2005, pet. ref = d); Marrow v. State , 169 S.W.3d 328 , 330 B 31 (Tex. App. C Waco 2005, pet. ref = d); s | 2 | 2006–2014 |
Washington v. Recuenco
green
2 sentences2018Relying upon Neder, the Supreme Court declared this Apprendi violation to be subject to the federal NILES — 5 harmless error rule as well.4 Id. at 220 . 2018Relying upon Neder, the Supreme Court declared this Apprendi violation to be subject to the federal NILES — 5 harmless error rule as well.4 Id. at 220 . | 1 | 2018–2018 |
D'ALESSANDRO v. Pennsylvania State Police
green
2 sentences2018See S. Union Co. v. U.S., 567 3 See also Hitch v. State, 51 N.E.3d 216, 225 (Ind. 2016) (loss of right to possess firearm is non-punitive part of regulatory regime aimed at protecting public); D’Alessandro v. Pa. State Police, 937 A.2d 404 , 411 n.7 (Pa. 2007) (noting gun restrictions imposed by section 922(g) “are not punitive in purpose or effect” and do not implicate Apprendi due-process concerns). 7 U.S. 343 , 350-51 (2012) (“Where a fine is so insubstantial that the underlying offense is considered ‘petty,’ the Sixth Amendment right of jury trial is not triggered, and no Apprendi issue ar 2018See S. Union Co. v. U.S., 567 3 See also Hitch v. State, 51 N.E.3d 216, 225 (Ind. 2016) (loss of right to possess firearm is non-punitive part of regulatory regime aimed at protecting public); D’Alessandro v. Pa. State Police, 937 A.2d 404 , 411 n.7 (Pa. 2007) (noting gun restrictions imposed by section 922(g) “are not punitive in purpose or effect” and do not implicate Apprendi due-process concerns). 7 U.S. 343 , 350-51 (2012) (“Where a fine is so insubstantial that the underlying offense is considered ‘petty,’ the Sixth Amendment right of jury trial is not triggered, and no Apprendi issue ar | 1 | 2018–2018 |
Jones v. United States
green
1 sentence2015Pp.2354-2366 (a) The answer to a narrow constitutional question presented - whether Apprendi's sentence was permissible, given that it exceeds the 10-year maximum for the offense charged - was foreshadowed;by the holding in Jones v. United States, 526 U.S.227, 119 S.Ct. 1215 , 143 L.Ed-2d 311, that,with1regard to federal law, the Fifth Amendment's Due Process Clause and the Sixth Amendment's notice and jury trial guarantees require that any fact other than a prior conviction that increases the maximum penalty for a crime must be submitted to a jury, and proved beyond a reasonable doubt. | 1 | 2015–2015 |
Blakely v. Washington
green
2 sentences2006In support of his argument that the federal and state constitutions require the jury to decide whether to cumulate sentences, Baylor relies on the Supreme Court’s opinion in Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296 , 124 S.Ct. 2531 , 159 L.Ed.2d *160 403 (2004), which applied the Apprendi rule. 2006In support of his argument that the federal and state constitutions require the jury to decide whether to cumulate sentences, Baylor relies on the Supreme Court’s opinion in Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296 , 124 S.Ct. 2531 , 159 L.Ed.2d *160 403 (2004), which applied the Apprendi rule. | 1 | 2006–2006 |
Walker v. Lamarque, Warden
green
1 sentence2005As to appellant’s Apprendi-Blakely-Ring complaint, “[t]he federal appellate courts have uniformly rejected the contention that Apprendi is violated when a trial court orders the cumulation of sentences which individually lie within the statutory range of punishment but for which the cumulative total exceeds the prescribed statutory maximum for any single offense.” Marrow v. State, 169 S.W.3d 328, 330 (Tex.App.-Waco 2005, pet. filed) (holding that no Apprendi violation shown when trial court cumulated sentences for aggravated sexual assault and indecency with a child when appellant did not disp | 1 | 2005–2005 |
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.