16 Texas opinions name it 3 courts 2010–2026 3 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 |
|---|---|---|
Ex Parte Lewisgreen2 sentences2013The court of appeals affirmed the illegal sentence in violation of this Court’s decisions in Ex Parte Rich, 194 S.W.3d 508 (Tex.Crim.App.2006), Ex Parte Lewis, 892 S.W.2d 4, 6 (Tex.Crim.App.1994), and Gordon v. State, 707 S.W.2d 626, 629 (Tex.Crim.App.1986). . 2013App. 2006), Ex Parte Lewis , 892 S.W.2d 4, 6 (Tex. Crim. | 3 | 3 |
Ex Parte Richgreen2 sentences2013The court of appeals affirmed the illegal sentence in violation of this Court’s decisions in Ex Parte Rich, 194 S.W.3d 508 (Tex.Crim.App.2006), Ex Parte Lewis, 892 S.W.2d 4, 6 (Tex.Crim.App.1994), and Gordon v. State, 707 S.W.2d 626, 629 (Tex.Crim.App.1986). . 2013The court of appeals affirmed the illegal sentence in violation of this Court's decisions in Ex Parte Rich , 194 S.W.3d 508 (Tex. Crim. | 2 | 5 |
Flowers v. Stategreen1 sentence2023Cf. Flowers v. State, 220 S.W.3d 919, 921 (Tex. Crim. | 1 | 1 |
Mizell v. Stategreen1 sentence2020Because Applicant claims that he was sentenced for a 5 Mizell v. State, 119 S.W.3d 804, 806 (Tex. Crim. | 1 | 1 |
Apprendi v. New Jerseygreen1 sentence2018Such a claim may be raised for the first time on appeal.7 We have no occasion to reformulate Appellant’s point of error for him. 4 See Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 490 (2000) (holding that, “other than the fact of a prior conviction, any fact that increases the penalty for a crime beyond the prescribed statutory maximum must be submitted to a jury”). 5 The Court notes that, in response to Appellant’s motion for new trial, “the trial judge said of the ‘public servant’ element, ‘The Houston Department firefighter, they got that.’” Majority Opinion at 8-9. | 1 | 1 |
Gordon v. Stategreen1 sentence2013The court of appeals affirmed the illegal sentence in violation of this Court’s decisions in Ex Parte Rich, 194 S.W.3d 508 (Tex.Crim.App.2006), Ex Parte Lewis, 892 S.W.2d 4, 6 (Tex.Crim.App.1994), and Gordon v. State, 707 S.W.2d 626, 629 (Tex.Crim.App.1986). . | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Texas. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Parrott, Ex Parte Jimmie Mark Jr.
green
2 sentences2020This Court’s precedent has held that a defendant can “always” raise an illegal sentence claim, 5 including for the first time in an initial application for writ of habeas corpus. 6 The Court explained in Mizell v. State that “[a] sentence that is outside the maximum or minimum range of punishment is unauthorized by law and therefore illegal.” 7 And the Court recognized in Ex parte Parrott that a claim of illegal sentence based upon an invalid enhancement is cognizable in post- conviction habeas corpus proceedings, but the Court held that such a claim is subject to a harm analysis. 396 S.W.3d a 2020And, in Parrott, the Court applied “[t]he general rule . . . that an applicant must show harm to obtain habeas relief” in the context of an illegal sentence claim based on the improper use of a prior conviction to enhance punishment. 396 S.W.3d at 534 . | 7 | 2013–2020 |
Bonilla, Ronald Antonio
green
1 sentence2026App. 2020); Bonilla v. State, 452 S.W.3d 811 , 817–18 (Tex. Crim. | 1 | 2026–2026 |
Alleyne v. United States
green
1 sentence2021Section 12.42(c)(2) is a 11 The State also argues that, if we find that Applicant’s sentences are illegal, he was probably harmed under Alleyne v. United States, 570 U.S. 99 (2013) because the enhancement increased the minimum punishment. | 1 | 2021–2021 |
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.