record to rebut presumption (Texas) · Go Syfert
← Texas issues

record to rebut presumption in Texas

19 Texas opinions name it 3 courts 1972–2026 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.

Followed or applied (18)

CaseFollowedCited
Ross v. Stategreen
texcrimapp · 2004 · cited in 2 Texas opinions naming this issue, 2008–2008
2 sentences

2008See Ross, 133 S.W.3d at 624 .

2008See Ross, 133 S.W.3d at 624 .

22
Alzarka v. Stategreen
texcrimapp · 2002 · cited in 2 Texas opinions naming this issue, 2005–2005
2 sentences

2005See Alzarka v. State , 90 S.W.3d 321, 324 (Tex. Crim.

2005See Alzarka v. State , 90 S.W.3d 321, 324 (Tex. Crim.

22
Luquis v. Stategreen
texcrimapp · 2002 · cited in 2 Texas opinions naming this issue, 2004–2004
2 sentences

2004See Luquis, 72 S.W.3d at 366, 368 .

2004See Luquis , 72 S.W.3d at 366, 368 .

22
Oldham v. Stategreen
texcrimapp · 1998 · cited in 2 Texas opinions naming this issue, 2002–2002
2 sentences

2002Oldham v. State , 977 S.W.2d 354, 363 (Tex. Crim.

2002Oldham v. State, 977 S.W.2d 354, 363 (Tex. Crim.

22
General Electric Co. v. Falcon Ridge Apartments, Joint Venturegreen
tex · 1991 · cited in 2 Texas opinions naming this issue, 2002–2002
2 sentences

2002See Falcon Ridge , 811 S.W.2d at 944 .

2002See Falcon Ridge, 811 S.W.2d at 944 .

22
Galloway v. Stategreen
texapp · 1986 · cited in 1 Texas opinions naming this issue, 2026–2026
1 sentence

2026See Galloway v. State, 716 S.W.2d 556, 557 (Tex. App.—Waco 1986, pet. ref’d).

11
Castillo v. Stategreen
texapp · 2006 · cited in 1 Texas opinions naming this issue, 2023–2023
1 sentence

2023Because we have already concluded that there is no evidence in the record to rebut the presumption that appellant rejected the option of filing a motion for new trial, the record is insufficient to show trial counsel’s performance fell below an objective standard of reasonableness because counsel did not file a motion for new trial.9 See Hudson v. State, 128 S.W.3d 367, 381 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2004, no pet.) (where nothing in record rebutted presumption that defendant was adequately counseled regarding motion for new trial and rejected that option, defendant could not prevail on claim his cou

11
Landers v. Stategreen
texapp · 2003 · cited in 1 Texas opinions naming this issue, 2023–2023
1 sentence

2023See Landers v. State, 110 S.W.3d 617, 625 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2003, pet. ref’d).

11
Kane v. Stategreen
texapp · 2002 · cited in 1 Texas opinions naming this issue, 2023–2023
1 sentence

2023Appellant next argues that his trial counsel’s performance fell below an objective standard of reasonableness because counsel did not “withdraw as counsel of record immediately after [appellant’s] sentence was pronounced so that the trial court would be able to appoint new counsel and new counsel would have [had a] full thirty[-]day time period.” Notably, because we have already concluded that there is no evidence in the record to rebut the presumption that appellant was adequately represented by his trial counsel during the motion-for-new-trial stage, the record is also insufficient to show t

11
Hudson v. Stategreen
texapp · 2004 · cited in 1 Texas opinions naming this issue, 2023–2023
1 sentence

2023Because we have already concluded that there is no evidence in the record to rebut the presumption that appellant rejected the option of filing a motion for new trial, the record is insufficient to show trial counsel’s performance fell below an objective standard of reasonableness because counsel did not file a motion for new trial.9 See Hudson v. State, 128 S.W.3d 367, 381 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2004, no pet.) (where nothing in record rebutted presumption that defendant was adequately counseled regarding motion for new trial and rejected that option, defendant could not prevail on claim his cou

11
Osborn v. Osborngreen
texapp · 1997 · cited in 1 Texas opinions naming this issue, 2016–2016
2 sentences

2016See id. (citing Osborn, 961 S.W.2d at 411 ).

2016See id. (citing Osborn, 961 S.W.2d at 411 ).

11
Colburn v. Stategreen
texcrimapp · 1998 · cited in 1 Texas opinions naming this issue, 2013–2013
1 sentence

2013See Colburn, 966 S.W.2d at 520 .

11
Strickland v. Washingtongreen
scotus · 1984 · cited in 1 Texas opinions naming this issue, 2010–2010
1 sentence

2010See Strickland , 466 U.S. at 688 ; Garza , 213 S.W.3d at 347 .

11
Bell v. Stategreen
texcrimapp · 2002 · cited in 1 Texas opinions naming this issue, 2005–2005
1 sentence

2005See Bell , 90 S.W.3d at 307 .

11
Williams v. Stategreen
texcrimapp · 1997 · cited in 1 Texas opinions naming this issue, 2005–2005
1 sentence

2005See Williams v. State, 937 S.W.2d 479, 490 (Tex.Crim.App. 1996); Gardner v. State, 730 S.W.2d 675, 696 (Tex.Crim.App.1987) (setting out jury presumed to follow instruction to disregard evidence); Lopez v. State, 664 S.W.2d 815, 817 (Tex.App.-Corpus Christi 1984, no pet.) (providing jury presumed to obey instruction to disregard improper testimony).

11
Lopez v. Texasgreen
texapp · 1984 · cited in 1 Texas opinions naming this issue, 2005–2005
1 sentence

2005See Williams v. State, 937 S.W.2d 479, 490 (Tex.Crim.App. 1996); Gardner v. State, 730 S.W.2d 675, 696 (Tex.Crim.App.1987) (setting out jury presumed to follow instruction to disregard evidence); Lopez v. State, 664 S.W.2d 815, 817 (Tex.App.-Corpus Christi 1984, no pet.) (providing jury presumed to obey instruction to disregard improper testimony).

11
Gardner v. Stategreen
texcrimapp · 1987 · cited in 1 Texas opinions naming this issue, 2005–2005
1 sentence

2005See Williams v. State, 937 S.W.2d 479, 490 (Tex.Crim.App. 1996); Gardner v. State, 730 S.W.2d 675, 696 (Tex.Crim.App.1987) (setting out jury presumed to follow instruction to disregard evidence); Lopez v. State, 664 S.W.2d 815, 817 (Tex.App.-Corpus Christi 1984, no pet.) (providing jury presumed to obey instruction to disregard improper testimony).

11
Martin v. Stategreen
texcrimapp · 1971 · cited in 1 Texas opinions naming this issue, 1972–1972
1 sentence

1972See Martin v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 463 S.W.2d 449 ; Landrum v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 456 S.W.2d 914 ; Mullenix v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 443 S.W.2d 264 .

11

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

CaseNegativeCited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Texas. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (4)

CaseCitedYears
Garza v. State green
texcrimapp · 2007
1 sentence

2010See Strickland , 466 U.S. at 688 ; Garza , 213 S.W.3d at 347 .

12010–2010
Gray v. State green
texapp · 2008
1 sentence

2009We note the similarity of this case to that of Gray , 257 S.W.3d 825 , wherein we determined that there was no evidence in the record to rebut the presumption of competence such that the trial court would have been required to make further inquiry into the defendant's competence. 8.

12009–2009
Landrum v. State green
texcrimapp · 1970
1 sentence

1972See Martin v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 463 S.W.2d 449 ; Landrum v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 456 S.W.2d 914 ; Mullenix v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 443 S.W.2d 264 .

11972–1972
Mullenix v. State green
texcrimapp · 1969
1 sentence

1972See Martin v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 463 S.W.2d 449 ; Landrum v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 456 S.W.2d 914 ; Mullenix v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 443 S.W.2d 264 .

11972–1972

Statutes the citing opinions construe

TX § Tex. Penal Code § 22.021 (3)

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.

Where else courts name it

CA 60 (1957–2025) IL 27 (1877–2024) TX 19 (1972–2026) NY 6 (1938–2009) PA 6 (1894–2025) OH 5 (2001–2022) TN 5 (1902–2013) FL 3 (1999–2026) AR 3 (1910–1943) GA 3 (1945–2015) NC 2 (1989–1991) WI 2 (1960–2019) LA 2 (2002–2010) NE 2 (1992–2003) SC 2 (1999–2012)

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.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check