set factors in Texas

2025See Holley v. Adams, 544 S.W.2d 367 , 371–72 (Tex. 1976). 4 The set of factors is not exhaustive, and no single factor is necessarily dispositive of the issue.

2025See Holley v. Adams, 544 S.W.2d 367 , 371–72 (Tex. 1976). 5 The set of factors is not exhaustive, and 4F no single factor is necessarily dispositive of the issue.

2024See Ex parte Rubac, 611 S.W.2d 848, 850 (Tex. Crim.

2023See Ex parte Rubac, 611 S.W.2d 848, 850 (Tex. Crim.

2026Id. at 372 ; In re A.B., 269 S.W.3d 120, 126 (Tex. App.—El Paso 2008, no pet.).

2026Id. at 372 ; In re A.B., 269 S.W.3d 120 , 126 (Tex. App.—El Paso 2008, no pet.).

2024See Holley, 544 S.W.2d at 372 ; see also In re C.H., 89 S.W.3d at 27 ; S.B., 654 S.W.3d at 255.

2023See Holley, 544 S.W.2d at 371–72; see also In re C.H., 89 S.W.3d at 27 ; S.B., 654 S.W.3d at 255.

2019See Ex parte Rodriguez, 595 S.W.2d 549 , 550 n. 2 (Tex. Crim.

2015See Ex 13 parte Rodriguez, 595 S.W.2d 549 , 550 n.2 (Tex. Crim.

2026See In re A.L.W., 356 S.W.3d 564 , 566–67 (Tex. App. 2011) (“[T]he trial court does not have to make a specific finding on the record that the affidavit was sufficient to warrant a hearing; the fact that the court set the hearing was, itself, proof that it regarded a filed affidavit as adequate.”).

2013See In re A.L.W., 356 S.W.3d at 566–67; In re S.A.E., No. 06–08–00139–CV, 2009 WL 2060087 (Tex. App.— Texarkana July 17, 2009, no pet.) (mem. op.); In re C.L.L., No. 12-06-00007- CV, 2007 WL 2045241 , at *3 (Tex. App.—Tyler July 18, 2007, no pet.) (mem. op) (trial court setting and hearing a motion to modify, constitutes proof that trial court regarded affidavit as adequate).

2023In re A.E.M., 2020 Tex. App. LEXIS 1439 , at *37 (citing Epps v. Deboise, 537 S.W.3d 238, 243 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2017, no pet.)).

2022In re A.E.M., 2020 Tex. App. LEXIS 1439 , at *37 (citing Epps v. Deboise, 537 S.W.3d 238, 243 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2017, no pet.)).

2015See Ex parte Rodriguez, 595 S.W.2d 549 , 550 n. 2 (Tex.Crim.App. [Panel Op.] 1980); Ex parte Castellanos, 420 S.W.3d 878, 882 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 2014, no pet.). .

2014See Ex parte Rubac, 611 S.W.2d 848, 849-50 (Tex.Crim.App. [Panel Op.] 1981); Ex parte Castellanos, 420 S.W.3d 878, 882 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.], no pet. h.).

1993In Blockburger v. United States , 284 U.S. 299 (1932), the court set the standard for determining whether the legislature intended multiple punishments in cases in which the same conduct violates two separate penal statutes: The applicable rule is that, where the same act or transaction constitutes a violation of two distinct statutory provisions, the test to be applied to determine whether there are two offenses or only one is whether each provision requires proof of an additional fact which the other does not. . . .

1993In Blockburger v. United States, 284 U.S. 299 , 52 S.Ct. 180 , 76 L.Ed. 306 (1932), the court set the standard for determining whether the legislature intended multiple punishments in cases in which the same conduct violates two separate penal statutes: The applicable rule is that, where the same act or transaction constitutes a violation of two distinct statutory provisions, the test to be applied to determine whether there *446 are two offenses or only one is whether each provision requires proof of an additional fact which the other does not....

2006The Court of Criminal Appeals sometimes "employ[s] a set of factors deemed useful in making a determination that the State's proffered race-neutral reasons are supported by the record, as well as the trial court's findings." Williams v. State, 804 S.W.2d 95, 105-106 (Tex.Crim.App. 1991); see Whitsey, 796 S.W.2d at 713-14 (op. on orig. submission); Keeton, 749 S.W.2d at 868 .

2006The Court of Criminal Appeals sometimes “employ[s] a set of factors deemed useful in making a determination that the State’s proffered race-neutral reasons are supported by the record, as well as the trial court’s findings.” Williams v. State, 804 S.W.2d 95, 105-106 (Tex.Crim.App. 1991); see Whitsey, 796 S.W.2d at 713-14 (op. on orig. submission); Keeton, 749 S.W.2d at 868 .

2021Shaw v. Lemon, 427 S.W.3d 536, 546 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2014, pet. denied) (no reversible error shown in granting motion to dismiss claim where Appellant did not bring forward on appeal some evidence on each element); see also Long v. Yurrick, 319 S.W.3d 944, 947 (Tex. App.—Austin 2010, no pet.) (any error in trial court granting motion for summary judgment before the date of the set hearing was harmless error).

2012In that case, the trial court set a hearing date and faxed a notice of hearing to Long’s attorney, which provided exactly 21 days’ notice of the hearing date. 319 S.W.3d at 946 .

2015In other words, the report does not criticize the concept of fingerprint comparison analysis or conclude that it is invalid in all cases; rather, it criticizes how it has been utilized in some cases.3 As the Dallas Court of Appeals has explained, "The existence of deficiencies in a particular field, however, does not merit the wholesale exclusion 2Sergeant Kish agreed "with the basic proposition that there not being a set standard for fingerprint identifiers in the scientific community is what's part of the basis for all of the scrutiny at this point in time." 3The article acknowledges that "[

2015In other words, the report does not criticize the concept of fingerprint comparison analysis or conclude that it is invalid in all cases; rather, it criticizes how it has been utilized in some cases. 3 As the Dallas Court of Appeals has explained, “The existence of deficiencies in a particular field, however, does not merit the wholesale exclusion 2 Sergeant Kish agreed “with the basic proposition that there not being a set standard for fingerprint identifiers in the scientific community is what’s part of the basis for all of the scrutiny at this point in time.” 3 The article acknowledges that

2013The motion then listed the set of factors, as set forth in Theus v. State, 845 S.W.2d 874 (Tex.Crim.App. 1992) and urged that the trial court was required to consider such factors before permitting impeachment of a witness with prior convictions. -3- At this time, I’m not going to allow the State to proffer that.

2013See Theus v. State, 845 S.W.2d 874, 880 (Tex.Crim.App.1992); LaHood v. State, 171 S.W.3d 613, 620 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 2005, pet. ref'd).

2008The standard of review for evaluating claims of ineffective assistance of counsel is set forth in Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687-96 , 104 S.Ct. 2052, 2064-69 , 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984).

2008The standard of review for evaluating claims of ineffective assistance of counsel is set forth in Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687-96 , 104 S.Ct. 2052, 2064-69 , 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984).

2006The Court of Criminal Appeals sometimes "employ[s] a set of factors deemed useful in making a determination that the State's proffered race-neutral reasons are supported by the record, as well as the trial court's findings." Williams v. State, 804 S.W.2d 95, 105-106 (Tex.Crim.App. 1991); see Whitsey, 796 S.W.2d at 713-14 (op. on orig. submission); Keeton, 749 S.W.2d at 868 .

2006The Court of Criminal Appeals sometimes “employ[s] a set of factors deemed useful in making a determination that the State’s proffered race-neutral reasons are supported by the record, as well as the trial court’s findings.” Williams v. State, 804 S.W.2d 95, 105-106 (Tex.Crim.App. 1991); see Whitsey, 796 S.W.2d at 713-14 (op. on orig. submission); Keeton, 749 S.W.2d at 868 .

2023In re C.H. v. Texas Dep’t of Fam. and Protective Servs., 389 S.W.3d 518, 523 (Tex. App.—El Paso 2012, no pet.).

2022The right of appeal is expressly granted in section 841.062(a) following the original determination of predator status; in addition, the constitutional protections that apply to the initial commitment proceeding attach if the trial court finds probable cause and conducts an adversarial hearing contemplated by section 841.103(c). 32 Simply put, individuals committed to treatment as sexually violent predators have several avenues of procedural due process, and that 30Id. § 841.102(c). 31In re Commitment of Richards, 395 S.W.3d 905, 910 (Tex. App.— Beaumont 2013, pet. denied). 32Id. (citing Tex.

2021Shaw v. Lemon, 427 S.W.3d 536, 546 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2014, pet. denied) (no reversible error shown in granting motion to dismiss claim where Appellant did not bring forward on appeal some evidence on each element); see also Long v. Yurrick, 319 S.W.3d 944, 947 (Tex. App.—Austin 2010, no pet.) (any error in trial court granting motion for summary judgment before the date of the set hearing was harmless error).

2015Delivery Co., LLC v. Brown, 451 S.W.3d 128, 131 (Tex. App.— Amarillo 2014, no pet.). 3 On August 28, 2015, the trial court set a hearing on ETT’s motion to request the appointment of special commissioners to be heard on August 31, 2015.

2013See Theus v. State, 845 S.W.2d 874, 880 (Tex.Crim.App.1992); LaHood v. State, 171 S.W.3d 613, 620 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 2005, pet. ref'd).

2009See id. (noting it was instructive in determining whether the dismissal oi'der was final that the trial court held a hearing on the sanctions motion thirty-six days after signing the order).