21 Texas opinions name it 2 courts 1992–2025 5 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 |
|---|---|---|
Alcott v. Stategreen2 sentences2003Alcott v. State, 51 S.W.3d 596, 601 (Tex. Crim. 2003Alcott v. State, 51 S.W.3d 596, 601 (Tex. Crim. | 3 | 3 |
United States v. J. Milton Richgreen2 sentences1998See United States v. Rich, 589 F.2d 1025, 1033-34 (10th Cir.1978) (trial court errs when, at a sua sponte hearing on the status of the ease, it allows a speedy trial challenge to be raised summarily on the basis of length of delay alone and dismisses the case without prior notice to the State or an opportunity to present evidence on the Barker factors). 1998See United States v. Rich, 589 F.2d 1025, 1033-34 (10th Cir.1978) (the trial court errs when, at a sua sponte hearing on the status of the case, it allows a speedy trial challenge to be raised summarily on the basis of length of delay alone and dismisses the case without prior notice to the State or an opportunity to present evidence on the Barker factors). | 3 | 3 |
Montoya v. Stategreen2 sentences2025Babyak, 2022 WL 2334549 , at *2 (citing Montoya, 291 S.W.3d at 426 ). 2015The trial court did not abuse its discretion in failing to conduct a sua sponte inquiry into appellant’s competency. ........................................8 CONCLUSION AND PRAYER .............................................................................. 10 CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE ....................................................................... 11 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE ................................................................................. 11 ii INDEX OF AUTHORITIES CASES Brown v. State, 129 S.W.3d 762 (Tex. App.--Houston [1st Dist.] 2004, no pet.) .................... | 1 | 3 |
Posey v. Stategreen1 sentence2025See Posey, 966 S.W.2d at 62 . | 1 | 1 |
Mendez v. Stategreen1 sentence2025Mendez v. State, 545 S.W.3d 548, 553 (Tex. Crim. | 1 | 1 |
Turner, Albert Jamesgreen1 sentence2015DISCUSSION Sua Sponte Inquiry into Competency In his first issue, Brock urges that the district court should have made its own determination regarding his competency before accepting his plea after he made “bizarre remarks . . . at the outset of his trial.” See Turner v. State, 422 S.W.3d 676, 688 (Tex. Crim. | 1 | 1 |
Huizar v. Stategreen1 sentence2006We will affirm the conviction. 1 Huizar v. State, 12 S.W.3d 479, 483-85 (Tex. Crim. | 1 | 1 |
Salazar v. Stategreen1 sentence2006The State continues to rely on Salazar v. State because, it says, it is “likely” that the testimony of the victims in counts one and three would have been admissible to refute Wheat’s defensive theory even if the cases had been tried separately. 3 See Salazar v. State, 127 S.W.3d 355, 365 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 2004, pet. ref'd). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Melendez v. Salinasgreen1 sentence2020Id. at 792 ; but see Melendez v. Salinas, 895 S.W.2d 714, 715 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi 1994, orig. proceeding) (“When a defendant voices a seemingly substantial complaint about counsel, the trial judge should make a thorough inquiry into the reasons for the defendant’s dissatisfaction.”). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Holt Atherton Industries, Inc. v. Heine
green
2 sentences2013In support its finding, the majority relies in part on Holt Atherton Indus., Inc. v. Heine, 835 S.W.2d 80 (Tex. 1992). 2013In support its finding, the majority relies in part on Holt Atherton Indus., Inc. v. Heine, 835 S.W.2d 80 (Tex.1992). | 2 | 2013–2013 |
in the Interest of K.M.L., a Child
green
1 sentence2025And, we do so under the legal sufficiency standard described in In re K.M.L., 443 S.W.3d 101 , 112–13 (Tex. 2014). | 1 | 2025–2025 |
Malcom v. State of Texas
green
1 sentence2020Id. at 792 ; but see Melendez v. Salinas, 895 S.W.2d 714, 715 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi 1994, orig. proceeding) (“When a defendant voices a seemingly substantial complaint about counsel, the trial judge should make a thorough inquiry into the reasons for the defendant’s dissatisfaction.”). | 1 | 2020–2020 |
Rodgers v. State
green
1 sentence2015The Court in Rodgers v. State, 180 S.W. 3d 716 (Tex. App-Waco, 2005 no pet.), decided that a trial judge must instruct the jury as to the burden of proof at the guilt-innocence phase of a trial regardless of whether the instruction was requested by the defendant. 7 In this case, adopting the position set forth above, the trial courA erred in failing to give the sua sponte instruction on Mirden of proof as to give the sua sponte instruction on burden of proof as to extraneous matters. | 1 | 2015–2015 |
Francisco Javier Iniquez v. State
green
1 sentence2015The trial court did not abuse its discretion in failing to conduct a sua sponte inquiry into appellant’s competency. ........................................8 CONCLUSION AND PRAYER .............................................................................. 10 CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE ....................................................................... 11 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE ................................................................................. 11 ii INDEX OF AUTHORITIES CASES Brown v. State, 129 S.W.3d 762 (Tex. App.--Houston [1st Dist.] 2004, no pet.) .................... | 1 | 2015–2015 |
Moore v. State
green
1 sentence2015App. 2009) ...............................................................4, 5 Moore v. State, 999 S.W.2d 385 (Tex. Crim. | 1 | 2015–2015 |
Waynetta Maria Jackson v. State
green
1 sentence2015The trial court did not abuse its discretion in failing to conduct a sua sponte inquiry into appellant’s competency. ........................................8 CONCLUSION AND PRAYER .............................................................................. 10 CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE ....................................................................... 11 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE ................................................................................. 11 ii INDEX OF AUTHORITIES CASES Brown v. State, 129 S.W.3d 762 (Tex. App.--Houston [1st Dist.] 2004, no pet.) .................... | 1 | 2015–2015 |
Brown v. State
green
1 sentence2015The trial court did not abuse its discretion in failing to conduct a sua sponte inquiry into appellant’s competency. ........................................8 CONCLUSION AND PRAYER .............................................................................. 10 CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE ....................................................................... 11 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE ................................................................................. 11 ii INDEX OF AUTHORITIES CASES Brown v. State, 129 S.W.3d 762 (Tex. App.--Houston [1st Dist.] 2004, no pet.) .................... | 1 | 2015–2015 |
Atkinson v. State
green
1 sentence2002Appellant also contends that Atkinson v. State requires a sua sponte instruction. 923 S.W.2d 21 (Tex. Crim. | 1 | 2002–2002 |
Moore v. State
green
2 sentences1992In particular, he claims that the court of appeals erred because the excusal granted in the present cause is similar to those found in Moore v. State, 542 S.W.2d 664 (Tex.Crim.App.1976), cert. denied, 431 U.S. 949 , 97 S.Ct. 2666 , 53 L.Ed.2d 266 (1977), and Green v. State, 764 S.W.2d 242 (Tex.Crim.App.1989), cases which he claims stand for the proposition that it is improper for the trial court to grant an excusal. when the excuse given comes during or after questioning of the venire. 1992In particular, he claims that the court of appeals erred because the excusal granted in the present cause is similar to those found in Moore v. State, 542 S.W.2d 664 (Tex.Crim.App. 1976), cert. denied, 431 U.S. 949 , 97 S.Ct. 2666 , 53 L.Ed.2d 266 (1977), and Green v. State, 764 S.W.2d 242 (Tex.Crim.App. 1989), cases which he claims stand for the proposition that it is improper for the trial court to grant an excusal when the excuse given comes during or after questioning of the venire. | 1 | 1992–1992 |
Green v. State
green
2 sentences1992In particular, he claims that the court of appeals erred because the excusal granted in the present cause is similar to those found in Moore v. State, 542 S.W.2d 664 (Tex.Crim.App.1976), cert. denied, 431 U.S. 949 , 97 S.Ct. 2666 , 53 L.Ed.2d 266 (1977), and Green v. State, 764 S.W.2d 242 (Tex.Crim.App.1989), cases which he claims stand for the proposition that it is improper for the trial court to grant an excusal. when the excuse given comes during or after questioning of the venire. 1992In particular, he claims that the court of appeals erred because the excusal granted in the present cause is similar to those found in Moore v. State, 542 S.W.2d 664 (Tex.Crim.App. 1976), cert. denied, 431 U.S. 949 , 97 S.Ct. 2666 , 53 L.Ed.2d 266 (1977), and Green v. State, 764 S.W.2d 242 (Tex.Crim.App. 1989), cases which he claims stand for the proposition that it is improper for the trial court to grant an excusal when the excuse given comes during or after questioning of the venire. | 1 | 1992–1992 |
Brown v. United States
green
2 sentences1992In particular, he claims that the court of appeals erred because the excusal granted in the present cause is similar to those found in Moore v. State, 542 S.W.2d 664 (Tex.Crim.App.1976), cert. denied, 431 U.S. 949 , 97 S.Ct. 2666 , 53 L.Ed.2d 266 (1977), and Green v. State, 764 S.W.2d 242 (Tex.Crim.App.1989), cases which he claims stand for the proposition that it is improper for the trial court to grant an excusal. when the excuse given comes during or after questioning of the venire. 1992In particular, he claims that the court of appeals erred because the excusal granted in the present cause is similar to those found in Moore v. State, 542 S.W.2d 664 (Tex.Crim.App. 1976), cert. denied, 431 U.S. 949 , 97 S.Ct. 2666 , 53 L.Ed.2d 266 (1977), and Green v. State, 764 S.W.2d 242 (Tex.Crim.App. 1989), cases which he claims stand for the proposition that it is improper for the trial court to grant an excusal when the excuse given comes during or after questioning of the venire. | 1 | 1992–1992 |
Rohauer v. Killiam Shows, Inc.
green
2 sentences1992In particular, he claims that the court of appeals erred because the excusal granted in the present cause is similar to those found in Moore v. State, 542 S.W.2d 664 (Tex.Crim.App.1976), cert. denied, 431 U.S. 949 , 97 S.Ct. 2666 , 53 L.Ed.2d 266 (1977), and Green v. State, 764 S.W.2d 242 (Tex.Crim.App.1989), cases which he claims stand for the proposition that it is improper for the trial court to grant an excusal. when the excuse given comes during or after questioning of the venire. 1992In particular, he claims that the court of appeals erred because the excusal granted in the present cause is similar to those found in Moore v. State, 542 S.W.2d 664 (Tex.Crim.App.1976), cert. denied, 431 U.S. 949 , 97 S.Ct. 2666 , 53 L.Ed.2d 266 (1977), and Green v. State, 764 S.W.2d 242 (Tex.Crim.App.1989), cases which he claims stand for the proposition that it is improper for the trial court to grant an excusal. when the excuse given comes during or after questioning of the venire. | 1 | 1992–1992 |
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.