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.
20 Texas opinions name it 1 courts 2001–2020 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 |
|---|---|---|
Luquis v. Stategreen2 sentences2010Moreover, neither the prosecutor nor defense attorney discussed good conduct time in argument or urged the jury to assess a greater (or lesser) sentence based upon any potential good conduct time credit, and although Appellant received the maximum sentence possible, life in prison, that is unsurprising given the crime, his abysmal criminal record, and his three prior extraneous aggravated sexual acts committed against children.4 See Luquis, 72 S.W.3d at 367-68 (concluding Appellant was not deprived of due process by the inclusion of the good conduct time instruction when counsel refrained from 2010Moreover, neither the prosecutor nor defense attorney discussed good conduct time in argument or urged the jury to assess a greater (or lesser) sentence based upon any potential good conduct time credit, and although Appellant received the maximum sentence possible, life in prison, that is unsurprising given the crime, his abysmal criminal record, and his three prior extraneous aggravated sexual acts committed against children. (4) See Luquis , 72 S.W.3d at 367-68 (concluding Appellant was not deprived of due process by the inclusion of the good conduct time instruction when counsel refrained | 5 | 14 |
Garcia v. Stategreen2 sentences2001It could not be charge error for the trial court to include the statutorily mandated instruction."); Martinez v. State, 969 S.W.2d 497, 500-02 (Tex.App.-Austin 1998, no pet.) (parole charge not constitutional error, and, assuming it is, constitutional harm analysis applies); Garcia v. State, 911 S.W.2d 866, 868-69 (Tex.App.-El Paso 1995, no pet.) (parole charge not constitutional error because it is not misleading). [5] See Hill v. State, 30 S.W.3d 505, 508-09 (Tex.App.-Texarkana 2000, no pet.) (holding that giving a good conduct time instruction amounted to egregious harm). 2001It could not be charge error for the trial court to include the statutorily mandated instruction.”); Martinez v. State, 969 S.W.2d 497, 500-02 (Tex.App.—Austin 1998, no pet.) (parole charge not constitutional error, and, assuming it is, constitutional harm analysis applies); Garcia v. State, 911 S.W.2d 866, 868-69 (Tex.App.—El Paso 1995, no pet.) (parole charge not constitutional error because it is not misleading). .See Hill v. State, 30 S.W.3d 505, 508-09 (Tex.App.—Texarkana 2000, no pet.) (holding that giving a good conduct time instruction amounted to egregious harm). | 2 | 2 |
Martinez v. Stategreen2 sentences2001It could not be charge error for the trial court to include the statutorily mandated instruction."); Martinez v. State, 969 S.W.2d 497, 500-02 (Tex.App.-Austin 1998, no pet.) (parole charge not constitutional error, and, assuming it is, constitutional harm analysis applies); Garcia v. State, 911 S.W.2d 866, 868-69 (Tex.App.-El Paso 1995, no pet.) (parole charge not constitutional error because it is not misleading). [5] See Hill v. State, 30 S.W.3d 505, 508-09 (Tex.App.-Texarkana 2000, no pet.) (holding that giving a good conduct time instruction amounted to egregious harm). 2001See Martinez v. State, 969 S.W.2d 497, 501-02 (Tex.App.—Austin 1998, no pet.) (after holding the good-conduct-time instruction was not unconstitutional, concluding it would not have been harmful under 44.2(a) even if it were unconstitutional, although the State mentioned parole once in closing, when the jury was instructed not to consider parole or good-conduct time, nothing showed the instruction confused the jury, and the crime was heinous); Jimenez I, 992 S.W.2d at 638-39 (considering similar factors in concluding error was harmless, although the instruction was not mentioned in closing arg | 2 | 2 |
Hill v. Stategreen2 sentences2001It could not be charge error for the trial court to include the statutorily mandated instruction."); Martinez v. State, 969 S.W.2d 497, 500-02 (Tex.App.-Austin 1998, no pet.) (parole charge not constitutional error, and, assuming it is, constitutional harm analysis applies); Garcia v. State, 911 S.W.2d 866, 868-69 (Tex.App.-El Paso 1995, no pet.) (parole charge not constitutional error because it is not misleading). [5] See Hill v. State, 30 S.W.3d 505, 508-09 (Tex.App.-Texarkana 2000, no pet.) (holding that giving a good conduct time instruction amounted to egregious harm). 2001But c.f., Hill v. State, 30 S.W.3d 505, 508-09 (Tex.App.-Texarkana 2000, no pet.) (holding that giving a good-conduct time instruction amounted to egregious harm). | 2 | 2 |
Green v. Stategreen2 sentences2001See also Green v. State, 839 S.W.2d 935, 946 (Tex.App.-Waco 1992, pet. ref'd) (assuming parole charge is constitutional error, Almanza's harm analysis applies) [6] The Court of Criminal Appeals held that where, as here, the defendant fails to object to a good conduct time instruction which is inapplicable to his alleged offense, the applicable standard of review on appeal is that of fundamental error; the judgment is not to be reversed unless it appears from the record that appellant did not have a fair and impartial trial. 2001See Martinez v. State, 969 S.W.2d 497, 501-02 (Tex.App.—Austin 1998, no pet.) (after holding the good-conduct-time instruction was not unconstitutional, concluding it would not have been harmful under 44.2(a) even if it were unconstitutional, although the State mentioned parole once in closing, when the jury was instructed not to consider parole or good-conduct time, nothing showed the instruction confused the jury, and the crime was heinous); Jimenez I, 992 S.W.2d at 638-39 (considering similar factors in concluding error was harmless, although the instruction was not mentioned in closing arg | 2 | 2 |
Jimenez v. Stategreen2 sentences2001See Jimenez, 32 S.W.3d at 233 (affirming harmless-error analysis, without deciding whether statute was unconstitutional as applied). [7] Jimenez, 32 S.W.3d at 239 n. 23. [8] Emphasis added. 2001See Jimenez, 32 S.W.3d at 233 (affirming harmless-error analysis, without deciding whether statute was unconstitutional as applied). [7] Jimenez, 32 S.W.3d at 239 n. 23. [8] Emphasis added. | 1 | 2 |
Muhammad v. Stategreen1 sentence2017See Luquis, 72 S.W.3d at 367 ; see also Garcia v. State, 911 S.W.2d 866, 868-69 (Tex.App.—El Paso 1995, no pet.)(overruling contention that charge instruction’s references to good time were misleading and denied appellant due process), citing Muhammad v. State, 830 S.W.2d 953, 954-956 (Tex. Crim. | 1 | 1 |
Atkinson v. Stategreen1 sentence2015See id. at 860 . | 1 | 1 |
Elbert Lee Sanders v. Stategreen1 sentence2014Id. at 363 ; see also Sanders v. State, No. 04-13-00487-CR, 2014 WL 4257907, at *3 (Tex. App.—San Antonio Aug. 29, 2014, no pet. h.). | 1 | 1 |
Phat Van Bui v. Stategreen1 sentence2002See Bui v. State , 68 S.W.3d 830, 834, 841, 843-44 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2002, no pet.). | 1 | 1 |
Jimenez v. Stategreen2 sentences2001See Martinez v. State, 969 S.W.2d 497, 501-02 (Tex.App.-Austin 1998, no pet.) (after holding the good-conduct-time instruction was not unconstitutional, concluding it would not have been harmful under 44.2(a) even if it were unconstitutional, although the State mentioned parole once in closing, when the jury was instructed not to consider parole or good-conduct time, nothing showed the instruction confused the jury, and the crime was heinous); Jimenez I, 992 S.W.2d at 638-39 (considering similar factors in concluding error was harmless, although the instruction was not mentioned in closing arg 2001See Martinez v. State, 969 S.W.2d 497, 501-02 (Tex.App.—Austin 1998, no pet.) (after holding the good-conduct-time instruction was not unconstitutional, concluding it would not have been harmful under 44.2(a) even if it were unconstitutional, although the State mentioned parole once in closing, when the jury was instructed not to consider parole or good-conduct time, nothing showed the instruction confused the jury, and the crime was heinous); Jimenez I, 992 S.W.2d at 638-39 (considering similar factors in concluding error was harmless, although the instruction was not mentioned in closing arg | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Texas. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Martinez v. State
green
1 sentence2020Consequently, we overrule Appellant’s second point on appeal. prosecutors “personally vouched for the truthfulness of a state’s witness or witnesses or indicated that some third party did”). 15 Martinez, 17 S.W.3d at 692–93; Mosley, 983 S.W.2d at 259 . 9 Jury Charge on Good-Time Credit and Parole In his third point, Appellant argues that the trial court reversibly erred in including a good-conduct-time instruction in the jury charge at the punishment phase of the trial because no person serving a sentence for aggravated sexual assault is eligible to accumulate good-conduct-time credits for par | 1 | 2020–2020 |
Mosley v. State
green
1 sentence2020Consequently, we overrule Appellant’s second point on appeal. prosecutors “personally vouched for the truthfulness of a state’s witness or witnesses or indicated that some third party did”). 15 Martinez, 17 S.W.3d at 692–93; Mosley, 983 S.W.2d at 259 . 9 Jury Charge on Good-Time Credit and Parole In his third point, Appellant argues that the trial court reversibly erred in including a good-conduct-time instruction in the jury charge at the punishment phase of the trial because no person serving a sentence for aggravated sexual assault is eligible to accumulate good-conduct-time credits for par | 1 | 2020–2020 |
Bradley v. State
green
2 sentences2001The First Court of Appeals has reasoned that "[w]hen faced with a conflicting statutory requirement that is, as applied to a particular defendant, unconstitutional, the trial court must follow the mandate of article 36.14, tailoring the charge so that it becomes a correct statement of the law as it applies to the particular defendant." Bradley v. State, 45 S.W.3d 221, 223 , (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 2001, pet. filed) (holding that the jury instruction that his sentence might be reduced through award of good conduct time was unconstitutional as applied to him because he was not eligible for 2001The First Court of Appeals has reasoned that ''[w]hen faced with a conflicting statutory requirement that is, as applied to a particular defendant, unconstitutional, the trial court must follow the mandate of article 36.14, tailoring the charge so that it becomes a correct statement of the law as it applies to the particular defendant.” Bradley v. State, 45 S.W.3d 221, 223 , (Tex.App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2001, pet. filed) (holding that the jury instruction that his sentence might be reduced through award of good conduct time was unconstitutional as applied to him because he was not eligible fo | 1 | 2001–2001 |