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.
19 Texas opinions name it 2 courts 1973–2024 1 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 |
|---|---|---|
Duran v. Stategreen2 sentences2013Relying on Justice Baird’s concurring opinion in Duran v. State, 844 S.W.2d 745 6 (Tex.Crim.App. 1992), the State contends that Duncan failed to prove he was prosecuted in a single criminal action because he did not show that the two offenses “were consolidated at the time he pled guilty and at the time of the revocation hearing.” The State’s reliance on Justice Baird’s concurring opinion in Duran is misplaced. 2013Relying on Justice Baird’s concurring opinion in Duran v. State, 844 S.W.2d 745 6 (Tex.Crim.App. 1992), the State contends that Duncan failed to prove he was prosecuted in a single criminal action because he did not show that the two offenses “were consolidated at the time he pled guilty and at the time of the revocation hearing.” The State’s reliance on Justice Baird’s concurring opinion in Duran is misplaced. | 2 | 2 |
Lively v. Stategreen1 sentence2024P. 33.1(a)(1); Lively v. State, 338 S.W.3d 140, 143 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2011, no pet.) (declining to address appellant’s complaint that his plea of true in revocation proceedings was involuntary because “no complaint was made to the trial court that the plea was involuntary not only at the time of the revocation hearing, but no motion for new trial raised this issue”); see also Utzman v. State, No. 06-19-00113-CR, 2020 WL 111305 , at *2 (Tex. App.—Texarkana Jan. 10, 2020, no pet.) (mem. op., not designated for publication) (“At the trial court, [appellant] never sought to withdraw his plea of | 1 | 1 |
Lanum v. Stategreen1 sentence2018See Lanum v. State, 952 S.W.2d 36, 40 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1997, no pet.) (finding defendant forfeited appellate review when he made no request to withdraw his plea at the time of the revocation hearing or in his motion for new trial). | 1 | 1 |
Johnson, Manley Dewaynegreen1 sentence2014E.g., Collazo v. State, No. 09-13-00458-CR, 2014 WL 2922243 , at *3 (Tex. App.—Beaumont June 25, 2014, no pet.) (mem. op., not designated for publication); Edwards, 2014 WL 1400747 , at *2–3; Conner v. State, 418 S.W.3d 742, 744 (Tex. App.— Houston [1st Dist.] 2013, no pet.); Strother v. State, No. 14-12-00599-CV, 2013 WL 4511360 , at *3–4 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] Aug. 22, 2013, pet. ref’d) (mem. op., not designated for publication); cf. Johnson v. State, 423 S.W.3d 385 , 395–96 (Tex. Crim. | 1 | 1 |
Joshua Alphonse Conner v. Stategreen1 sentence2014E.g., Collazo v. State, No. 09-13-00458-CR, 2014 WL 2922243 , at *3 (Tex. App.—Beaumont June 25, 2014, no pet.) (mem. op., not designated for publication); Edwards, 2014 WL 1400747 , at *2–3; Conner v. State, 418 S.W.3d 742, 744 (Tex. App.— Houston [1st Dist.] 2013, no pet.); Strother v. State, No. 14-12-00599-CV, 2013 WL 4511360 , at *3–4 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] Aug. 22, 2013, pet. ref’d) (mem. op., not designated for publication); cf. Johnson v. State, 423 S.W.3d 385 , 395–96 (Tex. Crim. | 1 | 1 |
Thompson v. Stategreen1 sentence2012Additionally, while appellant asserts defense counsel’s “confusion” is “evident from reading the transcript of the hearing,” appellant does not cite to the record in support of that assertion or further describe any such “confusion.” See Mallen, 65 S.W.3d at 63 (claim of ineffective assistance must be firmly founded in record); accord Thompson. 9 S.W.3d at 813 . | 1 | 1 |
Beedy v. Stategreen1 sentence2011See Beedy v. State , 250 S.W.3d 107, 110 (Tex. Crim. | 1 | 1 |
Cherry v. Stategreen1 sentence2009See also Cherry v. State , 215 S.W.3d 917, 919 (Tex.App.–Fort Worth 2007, pet. ref'd) (collecting cases). 5: At the time of the revocation hearing, the laboratory test on the substances was not yet available. | 1 | 1 |
Trevino v. Stategreen1 sentence1983“It appears clear that a probationer is entitled to counsel, either retained or appointed, at the time of the revocation hearing unless he has affirmatively waived the same.” (Emphasis added.) Parker v. State, supra. See also Trevino v. State, 565 S.W.2d 938, 940 (Tex.Cr.App.1978), holding that the fact absent counsel was retained rather than appointed does not authorize the court to proceed in his absence at a hearing on a motion for new trial. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Texas. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Whitehead v. State
green
2 sentences2012In Whitehead v. State, 273 S.W.3d 285 (Tex. Crim.App.2008), the appellant raised the issue of the disqualification of his trial attorney under Article 30.01 for the first time on appeal. 2012In Whitehead v. State, 273 S.W.3d 285 (Tex.Crim.App.2008), the appellant raised the issue of the disqualification of his trial attorney under Article 30.01 for the first time on appeal. | 3 | 2012–2012 |
Rogers v. State
green
2 sentences2015Id. 2015Id. | 2 | 2015–2015 |
Sanchez v. State
green
1 sentence2012One does not appear in the clerk’s record, and according to the trial court, Appellant’s writ was still pending at the time of the revocation hearing. [3] We also note that according to the written plea admonishments in the clerk’s record, as part of the original plea bargain agreement Appellant agreed to submit to a sex offender evaluation and to have no contact with children less than seventeen years of age. [4] No. 02-11-00033-CR, slip op. at 1–12 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth July 26, 2012, no pet. h.) (Dauphinot, J., dissenting), available at http://www.2ndcoa.courts.state.tx.us/htmlopinions.asp | 1 | 2012–2012 |
Green v. State
green
2 sentences1978In Barrientez, O’Hern and Green, supra, the defendant contended on appeal that the evidence was insufficient to prove the violation of probation in that the prior conviction relied on for revocation was on appeal and not final at the time of the revocation hearing. 1978In Barrientez, O'Hern and Green, supra, the defendant contended on appeal that the evidence was insufficient to prove the violation of probation in that the prior conviction relied on for revocation was on appeal and not final at the time of the revocation hearing. | 1 | 1978–1978 |
Ex Parte Fletcher
green
2 sentences1977See Article 42.12, supra; n. 31.6, and cases there cited; Crawford v. State, supra; Eiland v. State, 437 S.W.2d 551 (Tex.Cr.App.1969); Ex parte Fletcher, 442 S.W.2d 705 (Tex.Cr.App.1969); Ex parte Fuller, 435 S.W.2d 515 (Tex.Cr.App.1969); Ex parte Buffington, 439 S.W.2d 345 (Tex.Cr.App.1969); Ex parte Bird, 457 S.W.2d 559 (Tex.Cr.App.1970). 1977See Article 42.12, supra; n. 31.6, and cases there cited; Crawford v. State, supra; Eiland v. State, 437 S.W.2d 551 (Tex.Cr.App.1969); Ex parte Fletcher, 442 S.W.2d 705 (Tex.Cr. | 1 | 1977–1977 |
Ex Parte Fuller
green
1 sentence1977See Article 42.12, supra; n. 31.6, and cases there cited; Crawford v. State, supra; Eiland v. State, 437 S.W.2d 551 (Tex.Cr.App.1969); Ex parte Fletcher, 442 S.W.2d 705 (Tex.Cr.App.1969); Ex parte Fuller, 435 S.W.2d 515 (Tex.Cr.App.1969); Ex parte Buffington, 439 S.W.2d 345 (Tex.Cr.App.1969); Ex parte Bird, 457 S.W.2d 559 (Tex.Cr.App.1970). | 1 | 1977–1977 |
Crawford v. State
green
2 sentences1977See Article 42.12, supra; n. 31.6, and cases there cited; Crawford v. State, supra; Eiland v. State, 437 S.W.2d 551 (Tex.Cr.App.1969); Ex parte Fletcher, 442 S.W.2d 705 (Tex.Cr.App.1969); Ex parte Fuller, 435 S.W.2d 515 (Tex.Cr.App.1969); Ex parte Buffington, 439 S.W.2d 345 (Tex.Cr.App.1969); Ex parte Bird, 457 S.W.2d 559 (Tex.Cr.App.1970). 1977See Article 42.12, supra; n. 31.6, and cases there cited; Crawford v. State, supra; Eiland v. State, 437 S.W.2d 551 (Tex.Cr.App.1969); Ex parte Fletcher, 442 S.W.2d 705 (Tex.Cr. | 1 | 1977–1977 |
Ex Parte Bird
green
1 sentence1977See Article 42.12, supra; n. 31.6, and cases there cited; Crawford v. State, supra; Eiland v. State, 437 S.W.2d 551 (Tex.Cr.App.1969); Ex parte Fletcher, 442 S.W.2d 705 (Tex.Cr.App.1969); Ex parte Fuller, 435 S.W.2d 515 (Tex.Cr.App.1969); Ex parte Buffington, 439 S.W.2d 345 (Tex.Cr.App.1969); Ex parte Bird, 457 S.W.2d 559 (Tex.Cr.App.1970). | 1 | 1977–1977 |
Eiland v. State
green
2 sentences1977See Article 42.12, supra; n. 31.6, and cases there cited; Crawford v. State, supra; Eiland v. State, 437 S.W.2d 551 (Tex.Cr.App.1969); Ex parte Fletcher, 442 S.W.2d 705 (Tex.Cr.App.1969); Ex parte Fuller, 435 S.W.2d 515 (Tex.Cr.App.1969); Ex parte Buffington, 439 S.W.2d 345 (Tex.Cr.App.1969); Ex parte Bird, 457 S.W.2d 559 (Tex.Cr.App.1970). 1977See Article 42.12, supra; n. 31.6, and cases there cited; Crawford v. State, supra; Eiland v. State, 437 S.W.2d 551 (Tex.Cr.App.1969); Ex parte Fletcher, 442 S.W.2d 705 (Tex.Cr. | 1 | 1977–1977 |
Ex Parte Buffington
green
1 sentence1977See Article 42.12, supra; n. 31.6, and cases there cited; Crawford v. State, supra; Eiland v. State, 437 S.W.2d 551 (Tex.Cr.App.1969); Ex parte Fletcher, 442 S.W.2d 705 (Tex.Cr.App.1969); Ex parte Fuller, 435 S.W.2d 515 (Tex.Cr.App.1969); Ex parte Buffington, 439 S.W.2d 345 (Tex.Cr.App.1969); Ex parte Bird, 457 S.W.2d 559 (Tex.Cr.App.1970). | 1 | 1977–1977 |
Barber v. State
green
1 sentence1976Barber v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 542 S.W.2d 412 ; Conrad v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 537 S.W.2d 755 ; Simmons v. State, 511 S.W.2d 308 . | 1 | 1976–1976 |
Curry v. State
green
1 sentence1976Appellant cites Curry v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 488 S.W.2d 100 , where this Court held that after the trial court holds a hearing under Art. 40.09, Sec. 5, V.A.C.C.P. 1 to determine if a defendant is indigent: “If the court finds he is not indigent, a sufficient record of the hearing on indi-gency must be made so that in the event of another appeal, this Court will be able to determine whether there was an abuse of discretion or not.” The State notes in its brief that appellant was represented by retained counsel and was out on bond at the time of the revocation hearing and “out on bond pending a | 1 | 1976–1976 |
Conrad v. State
green
1 sentence1976Barber v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 542 S.W.2d 412 ; Conrad v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 537 S.W.2d 755 ; Simmons v. State, 511 S.W.2d 308 . | 1 | 1976–1976 |
Simmons v. State
green
1 sentence1976Barber v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 542 S.W.2d 412 ; Conrad v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 537 S.W.2d 755 ; Simmons v. State, 511 S.W.2d 308 . | 1 | 1976–1976 |
Harris v. State
green
2 sentences1973This court in Harris v. State, 169 Tex.Cr.R. 71 , 331 S.W.2d 941 (1960), reversed the revocation of probation solely on the basis of a guilty verdict in another case. 1973This court in Harris v. State, 169 Tex.Cr.R. 71 , 331 S.W.2d 941 (1960), reversed the revocation of probation solely on the basis of a guilty verdict in another case. | 1 | 1973–1973 |
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.