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.
21 Texas opinions name it 2 courts 2000–2025 9 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 |
|---|---|---|
Bigon v. Stategreen2 sentences2024Remedy for Double Jeopardy Violations When a multiple-punishment violation occurs, “the remedy is to affirm the conviction for the most serious offense and vacate the other convictions.” Bigon v. State, 11 252 S.W.3d 360, 372 (Tex. Crim. 2024Remedy for Double Jeopardy Violations When a multiple-punishment violation occurs, “the remedy is to affirm the conviction for the most serious offense and vacate the other convictions.” Bigon v. State, 252 S.W.3d 360, 372 (Tex. Crim. | 5 | 9 |
Gonzalez v. Stategreen2 sentences2005Gonzalez v. State , 8 S.W.3d 640 (Tex. Crim. 2000See Gonzalez v. State, 8 S.W.3d 640, 645-46 (Tex.Crim.App.2000) (if the face of the record does not show a multiple punishment violation, a defendant who failed to object at trial waives right to complain of double jeopardy on appeal). | 2 | 3 |
Ervin v. Stategreen2 sentences2017In Ervin v. State, the Court of Criminal Appeals provided a nonexclusive list of factors to consider when analyzing a multiple-punishment claim. 991 S.W.2d 804, 814 (Tex. Crim. 2016In Ervin v. State, the court provided a nonexclusive list of factors to consider when analyzing a multiple-punishment claim. 991 S.W.2d 804, 814 (Tex.Crim.App.1999). | 2 | 2 |
Ball v. United Statesgreen1 sentence2025Id.; Ball v. United States, 470 U.S. 856, 865 (1985) (“If, upon the trial, the district judge is satisfied that there is sufficient proof to go the jury on both counts, he should instruct the jury as to the elements of each offense. | 1 | 1 |
Ex Parte Cavazosgreen1 sentence2024Generally, the “most serious offense [is] the offense in which the greatest sentence was assessed.” Id. at 373 (citing Ex parte Cavazos, 203 S.W.3d 333, 338 (Tex. Crim. | 1 | 1 |
Denton, Ex Parte William Charlesgreen1 sentence2024See Ex parte Denton, 399 S.W.3d at 544 . | 1 | 1 |
Apolinar v. Stategreen1 sentence2018See Apolinar v. State, 820 S.W.2d 792, 794 (Tex. Crim. | 1 | 1 |
Disheroon v. Stategreen1 sentence2000See Phillips v. State, 787 S.W.2d 391, 393 (Tex.Crim.App.1990); see also Ex parte Birdwell, 7 S.W.3d 160, 163-64 (Tex.Crim.App.1999) (holding that while guilty plea did not waive double jeopardy protections, submitting to second trial in exchange for more lenient sentence did amount to waiver); Ex parte Hawkins, 6 S.W.3d 554 , 555 n. 1 (Tex.Crim.App.1999) (Meyers, J., concurring) (suggesting that "in order to `waive' his rights under the Double Jeopardy Clause within the meaning of Marin , a defendant must take some affirmative action inconsistent with those constitutional rights") (emphasis i | 1 | 1 |
Ex Parte Birdwellgreen1 sentence2000See Phillips v. State, 787 S.W.2d 391, 393 (Tex.Crim.App.1990); see also Ex parte Birdwell, 7 S.W.3d 160, 163-64 (Tex.Crim.App.1999) (holding that while guilty plea did not waive double jeopardy protections, submitting to second trial in exchange for more lenient sentence did amount to waiver); Ex parte Hawkins, 6 S.W.3d 554 , 555 n. 1 (Tex.Crim.App.1999) (Meyers, J., concurring) (suggesting that "in order to `waive' his rights under the Double Jeopardy Clause within the meaning of Marin , a defendant must take some affirmative action inconsistent with those constitutional rights") (emphasis i | 1 | 1 |
Phillips v. Stategreen1 sentence2000See Phillips v. State, 787 S.W.2d 391, 393 (Tex.Crim.App.1990); see also Ex parte Birdwell, 7 S.W.3d 160, 163-64 (Tex.Crim.App.1999) (holding that while guilty plea did not waive double jeopardy protections, submitting to second trial in exchange for more lenient sentence did amount to waiver); Ex parte Hawkins, 6 S.W.3d 554 , 555 n. 1 (Tex.Crim.App.1999) (Meyers, J., concurring) (suggesting that "in order to `waive' his rights under the Double Jeopardy Clause within the meaning of Marin , a defendant must take some affirmative action inconsistent with those constitutional rights") (emphasis i | 1 | 1 |
Landers v. Stategreen1 sentence2000In his reply brief, appellant correctly asserts that the "only issue is the appropriate appellate remedy in the face of two convictions, both of which cannot stand." Appellant insists that the proper remedy is to reverse the judgment for "both convictions and remand the cause to the trial court for a new trial." On the other hand, the State urges that the "proper remedy for a multiple punishment violation of double jeopardy is to affirm the conviction for the offense which results in the most serious punishment, and to vacate any remaining convictions for offenses that are the same for double | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Texas. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Gonzales v. State
green
1 sentence2011Gonzales, 304 S.W.3d at 845 . | 1 | 2011–2011 |
United States v. Halper
red
1 sentence2000Id. at 1903 n. 10. | 1 | 2000–2000 |
Ex Parte Hawkins
green
1 sentence2000See Phillips v. State, 787 S.W.2d 391, 393 (Tex.Crim.App.1990); see also Ex parte Birdwell, 7 S.W.3d 160, 163-64 (Tex.Crim.App.1999) (holding that while guilty plea did not waive double jeopardy protections, submitting to second trial in exchange for more lenient sentence did amount to waiver); Ex parte Hawkins, 6 S.W.3d 554 , 555 n. 1 (Tex.Crim.App.1999) (Meyers, J., concurring) (suggesting that "in order to `waive' his rights under the Double Jeopardy Clause within the meaning of Marin , a defendant must take some affirmative action inconsistent with those constitutional rights") (emphasis i | 1 | 2000–2000 |
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.