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.
16 Texas opinions name it 2 courts 1975–2015 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 |
|---|---|---|
Ex Parte Augustared2 sentences1989This Court adopted and applied the holding that the Supreme Court made in Bullington, supra, in Cooper v. State, 631 S.W. 2d 508 (Tex.Cr.App.1982) (held, as a matter of federal constitutional law compelled by Bullington, supra, because the State failed to sufficiently prove all of the facts necessary to find an enhancement paragraph "true" at the punishment stage of the defendant's trial, the State was barred from attempting at a new punishment hearing in that cause to prove its original enhancement allegations.) Also see Ex parte Augusta, 639 S.W.2d 481 (Tex.Cr.App.1982) (held, under either t 1989This Court adopted and applied the holding that the Supreme Court made in Bullington, supra, in Cooper v. State, 631 S.W. 2d 508 (Tex.Cr.App.1982) (held, as a matter of federal constitutional law compelled by Bullington, supra, because the State failed to sufficiently prove all of the facts necessary to find an enhancement paragraph “true” at the punishment stage of the defendant’s trial, the State was barred from attempting at a new punishment hearing in that cause to prove its original enhancement allegations.) Also see Ex parte Augusta, 639 S.W.2d 481 (Tex.Cr.App.1982) (held, under either t | 2 | 3 |
Cooper v. Statered2 sentences1989This Court adopted and applied the holding that the Supreme Court made in Bullington, supra, in Cooper v. State, 631 S.W. 2d 508 (Tex.Cr.App.1982) (held, as a matter of federal constitutional law compelled by Bullington, supra, because the State failed to sufficiently prove all of the facts necessary to find an enhancement paragraph "true" at the punishment stage of the defendant's trial, the State was barred from attempting at a new punishment hearing in that cause to prove its original enhancement allegations.) Also see Ex parte Augusta, 639 S.W.2d 481 (Tex.Cr.App.1982) (held, under either t 1989This Court adopted and applied the holding that the Supreme Court made in Bullington, supra, in Cooper v. State, 631 S.W. 2d 508 (Tex.Cr.App.1982) (held, as a matter of federal constitutional law compelled by Bullington, supra, because the State failed to sufficiently prove all of the facts necessary to find an enhancement paragraph “true” at the punishment stage of the defendant’s trial, the State was barred from attempting at a new punishment hearing in that cause to prove its original enhancement allegations.) Also see Ex parte Augusta, 639 S.W.2d 481 (Tex.Cr.App.1982) (held, under either t | 1 | 4 |
Prater v. Stategreen1 sentence2015See Prater v. State, 903 S.W.2d 57, 59 (Tex.App.Fort Worth 1995, no pet.) (“When the enhancement element is waived, there is no issue in controversy regarding enhancement of punishment and no evidence is required. | 1 | 1 |
Monge v. Californiagreen2 sentences2015See Monge v. California, 524 U.S. 721, 724 , 118 S.Ct. 2246 , 141 L.Ed.2d 615 (1998) (holding that the Double Jeopardy Clause is not applicable to noncapital sen- *185 fencing proceedings). 2015See Monge v. California, 524 U.S. 721, 724 , 118 S.Ct. 2246 , 141 L.Ed.2d 615 (1998) (holding that the Double Jeopardy Clause is not applicable to noncapital sen- *185 fencing proceedings). | 1 | 1 |
Kansas v. Hendricksgreen2 sentences2015See Kansas v. Hendricks, 521 U.S. 346, 361 , 117 S.Ct. 2072, 2082 , 138 L.Ed.2d 501 (1997) (rejecting appellant’s argument that initiation of commitment proceedings constituted a second punishment in violation of his double jeopardy rights in light of the Court’s finding that the Kansas civil commitment Act was civil in nature, and not punitive); but see Karsjens v. Jesson, 109 F.Supp.3d 1139 , 2015 WL 3755870 (D.Minn.2015) (ruling portions of Minnesota’s civil commitment program to be “punitive” in nature, and therefore unconstitu *509 tional, and describing the program as- an “institutional 2015See Kansas v. Hendricks, 521 U.S. 346, 361 , 117 S.Ct. 2072, 2082 , 138 L.Ed.2d 501 (1997) (rejecting appellant’s argument that initiation of commitment proceedings constituted a second punishment in violation of his double jeopardy rights in light of the Court’s finding that the Kansas civil commitment Act was civil in nature, and not punitive); but see Karsjens v. Jesson, 109 F.Supp.3d 1139 , 2015 WL 3755870 (D.Minn.2015) (ruling portions of Minnesota’s civil commitment program to be “punitive” in nature, and therefore unconstitu *509 tional, and describing the program as- an “institutional | 1 | 1 |
In Re Commitment of Fishergreen1 sentence2015See In re Commitment of Fisher, 164 S.W.3d 637, 640-47 (Tex.2005). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Savagegreen1 sentence2015Then on that same page the Court of Appeals erroneously relied on State v. Savage, 933 S.W.2d 497, 500 (Tex. Crim. | 1 | 1 |
Moore v. Stategreen1 sentence2013See Moore, 999 S.W.2d at 395–96; see also Reed v. State, 112 S.W.3d 706, 711 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2003, pet. ref’d) (stating evidence of head injury and mental impairment “alone does not constitute evidence of legal incompetency”). | 1 | 1 |
Cooper v. Stategreen1 sentence2013See Cooper v. State, 527 S.W.2d 898, 899 (Tex. Crim. App. 1975). | 1 | 1 |
Reed v. Stategreen1 sentence2013See Moore, 999 S.W.2d at 395–96; see also Reed v. State, 112 S.W.3d 706, 711 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2003, pet. ref’d) (stating evidence of head injury and mental impairment “alone does not constitute evidence of legal incompetency”). | 1 | 1 |
Busselman v. Stategreen1 sentence2000See Busselman v. State, 713 S.W.2d 711, 713 (Tex.App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1986, no pet.); see also State v. Rowan, 927 S.W.2d 116, 116-17 (Tex.App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1996, no pet.). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Rowangreen1 sentence2000See Busselman v. State, 713 S.W.2d 711, 713 (Tex.App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1986, no pet.); see also State v. Rowan, 927 S.W.2d 116, 116-17 (Tex.App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1996, no pet.). | 1 | 1 |
Ex Parte Quirkegreen1 sentence1995See Quirke, 710 S.W.2d at 584 ; Carter, 676 S.W.2d at 355 ; Ex parte Augusta, 639 S.W.2d 481, 485 (Tex.Crim.App.1982) (en banc); Cooper v. State, 631 S.W.2d 508, 513 (Tex.Crim.App.1982) (en banc). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Karsjens v. Jessongreen2 sentences2015See Kansas v. Hendricks, 521 U.S. 346, 361 , 117 S.Ct. 2072, 2082 , 138 L.Ed.2d 501 (1997) (rejecting appellant’s argument that initiation of commitment proceedings constituted a second punishment in violation of his double jeopardy rights in light of the Court’s finding that the Kansas civil commitment Act was civil in nature, and not punitive); but see Karsjens v. Jesson, 109 F.Supp.3d 1139 , 2015 WL 3755870 (D.Minn.2015) (ruling portions of Minnesota’s civil commitment program to be “punitive” in nature, and therefore unconstitu *509 tional, and describing the program as- an “institutional 2015See Kansas v. Hendricks, 521 U.S. 346, 361 , 117 S.Ct. 2072, 2082 , 138 L.Ed.2d 501 (1997) (rejecting appellant’s argument that initiation of commitment proceedings constituted a second punishment in violation of his double jeopardy rights in light of the Court’s finding that the Kansas civil commitment Act was civil in nature, and not punitive); but see Karsjens v. Jesson, 109 F.Supp.3d 1139 , 2015 WL 3755870 (D.Minn.2015) (ruling portions of Minnesota’s civil commitment program to be “punitive” in nature, and therefore unconstitu *509 tional, and describing the program as- an “institutional | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
United States v. Halper
red
2 sentences1995Halper, 490 U.S. at 452 , 109 S.Ct. at 1903-04 . 1992The Supreme Court held that “under the Double Jeopardy Clause a defendant who already has been punished in a criminal prosecution may not be subjected to an additional civil sanction to the extent that the second sanction might not fairly be characterized as remedial, but only as deterrent or retribution.” Id. 109 S.Ct. at 1902 . | 2 | 1992–1995 |
Jackson v. Virginia
red
1 sentence2015App. 1999) affirms the obvious; each and every stage of a criminal action by the State against a person, including but not limited to a trial, is a criminal prosecution." At page four of the Slip Opinion, the Court of Appeals, relying on Gaddy v. State, supra, states "our judgment of acquittal was never final and was rendered a nullity when it was vacated by the Court of Criminal Appeals." Prior to that, on the same page, the court below concluded, "Appellant has not been subjected to a 'second trial' to determine her guilt or innocence; she has been subjected only to a second punishment heari | 1 | 2015–2015 |
Smith v. State
red
1 sentence1997The Court of Criminal Appeals interpreted article 37.071, § 2(a) in two cases decided three weeks before the second punishment hearing here, Smith v. State, 919 S.W.2d 96 (Tex.Crim.App.), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 117 S.Ct. 587 , 136 L.Ed.2d 516 (1996), and Ford v. State, 919 S.W.2d 107 (Tex.Crim.App.1996). | 1 | 1997–1997 |
Ford v. State
green
1 sentence1997The Court of Criminal Appeals interpreted article 37.071, § 2(a) in two cases decided three weeks before the second punishment hearing here, Smith v. State, 919 S.W.2d 96 (Tex.Crim.App.), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 117 S.Ct. 587 , 136 L.Ed.2d 516 (1996), and Ford v. State, 919 S.W.2d 107 (Tex.Crim.App.1996). | 1 | 1997–1997 |
Smith v. Texas
neutral
1 sentence1997The Court of Criminal Appeals interpreted article 37.071, § 2(a) in two cases decided three weeks before the second punishment hearing here, Smith v. State, 919 S.W.2d 96 (Tex.Crim.App.), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 117 S.Ct. 587 , 136 L.Ed.2d 516 (1996), and Ford v. State, 919 S.W.2d 107 (Tex.Crim.App.1996). | 1 | 1997–1997 |
Carter v. State
green
1 sentence1995See Quirke, 710 S.W.2d at 584 ; Carter, 676 S.W.2d at 355 ; Ex parte Augusta, 639 S.W.2d 481, 485 (Tex.Crim.App.1982) (en banc); Cooper v. State, 631 S.W.2d 508, 513 (Tex.Crim.App.1982) (en banc). | 1 | 1995–1995 |
Arizona v. Rumsey
green
2 sentences1989This Court adopted and applied the holding that the Supreme Court made in Bullington, supra, in Cooper v. State, 631 S.W. 2d 508 (Tex.Cr.App.1982) (held, as a matter of federal constitutional law compelled by Bullington, supra, because the State failed to sufficiently prove all of the facts necessary to find an enhancement paragraph “true” at the punishment stage of the defendant’s trial, the State was barred from attempting at a new punishment hearing in that cause to prove its original enhancement allegations.) Also see Ex parte Augusta, 639 S.W.2d 481 (Tex.Cr.App.1982) (held, under either t 1989This Court adopted and applied the holding that the Supreme Court made in Bullington, supra, in Cooper v. State, 631 S.W. 2d 508 (Tex.Cr.App.1982) (held, as a matter of federal constitutional law compelled by Bullington, supra, because the State failed to sufficiently prove all of the facts necessary to find an enhancement paragraph “true” at the punishment stage of the defendant’s trial, the State was barred from attempting at a new punishment hearing in that cause to prove its original enhancement allegations.) Also see Ex parte Augusta, 639 S.W.2d 481 (Tex.Cr.App.1982) (held, under either t | 1 | 1989–1989 |
Greene v. Massey
green
2 sentences1982This Court held that the opinions of the United States Supreme Court in Burks v. United States, 437 U.S. 1 , 98 S.Ct. 2141 , 57 L.Ed.2d 1 (1978); and Greene v. Massey, 437 U.S. 19 , 98 S.Ct. 2151 , 57 L.Ed.2d 15 (1978) did not apply to the proof of prior convictions for the purpose of enhancement of punishment. 1982This Court held that the opinions of the United States Supreme Court in Burks v. United States, 437 U.S. 1 , 98 S.Ct. 2141 , 57 L.Ed.2d 1 (1978); and Greene v. Massey, 437 U.S. 19 , 98 S.Ct. 2151 , 57 L.Ed.2d 15 (1978) did not apply to the proof of prior convictions for the purpose of enhancement of punishment. | 1 | 1982–1982 |
Burks v. United States
green
2 sentences1982This Court held that the opinions of the United States Supreme Court in Burks v. United States, 437 U.S. 1 , 98 S.Ct. 2141 , 57 L.Ed.2d 1 (1978); and Greene v. Massey, 437 U.S. 19 , 98 S.Ct. 2151 , 57 L.Ed.2d 15 (1978) did not apply to the proof of prior convictions for the purpose of enhancement of punishment. 1982This Court held that the opinions of the United States Supreme Court in Burks v. United States, 437 U.S. 1 , 98 S.Ct. 2141 , 57 L.Ed.2d 1 (1978); and Greene v. Massey, 437 U.S. 19 , 98 S.Ct. 2151 , 57 L.Ed.2d 15 (1978) did not apply to the proof of prior convictions for the purpose of enhancement of punishment. | 1 | 1982–1982 |
Marrero v. State
green
1 sentence1975White v. State, supra; Marrero v. State, 500 S.W.2d 818 (Tex.Cr.App.1973). | 1 | 1975–1975 |
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.