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.
13 Texas opinions name it 2 courts 2000–2018 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 |
|---|---|---|
Sifuentes v. Stategreen2 sentences2005See Sifuentes v. State, 29 S.W.3d 238, 244 (Tex.App.-Amarillo 2000, pet. ref'd). 2004See Sifuentes v. State , 29 S.W.3d 238, 244 (Tex. App.—Amarillo 2000, pet. ref’d). | 3 | 3 |
Sierra v. Stategreen2 sentences2018Id. at 350 ; see also Sierra, 218 S.W.3d at 88 . 2014The Court in Sanchez-Llamas also noted that, if a defendant raises an Article 36 violation at trial, “a court can make appropriate accommodations to ensure that the defendant secures, to the extent possible, the benefits of consular assistance.” Id. at 350 , 126 S.Ct. at 2682 ; see also Sierra, 218 S.W.3d at 88 (noting that Supreme Court has held that if defendant raises Vienna Convention violation at trial, trial court can make accommodations to ensure benefits of consular assistance). | 2 | 3 |
Breard v. Greenegreen2 sentences2005Breard, 523 U.S. at 377 , 118 S.Ct. 1352 (stating that "it is extremely doubtful that the violation should result in the overturning of a final judgment of conviction without some showing that the violation had an effect on the trial” and noting that defendant’s trial attorneys "were likely far better able to explain the United States legal system to him than any consular official would have been”); Cardenas, 405 F.3d at 253-54 (defendant failed to show that he was harmed by any lack of consular notification); United States v. Cordoba-Mosquera, 212 F.3d 1194, 1196 (11th Cir.2000) (defendants n 2005Breard, 523 U.S. at 377 , 118 S.Ct. 1352 (stating that "it is extremely doubtful that the violation should result in the overturning of a final judgment of conviction without some showing that the violation had an effect on the trial” and noting that defendant’s trial attorneys "were likely far better able to explain the United States legal system to him than any consular official would have been”); Cardenas, 405 F.3d at 253-54 (defendant failed to show that he was harmed by any lack of consular notification); United States v. Cordoba-Mosquera, 212 F.3d 1194, 1196 (11th Cir.2000) (defendants n | 2 | 3 |
United States v. Cordoba-Mosqueragreen2 sentences2005Breard , 523 U.S. at 377 (stating that "it is extremely doubtful that the violation should result in the overturning of a final judgment of conviction without some showing that the violation had an effect on the trial" and noting that defendant's trial attorneys "were likely far better able to explain the United States legal system to him than any consular official would have been"); United States v. Cardenas , 405 F.3d at 253-55 (defendant failed to show that he was harmed by any lack of consular notification); United States v. Cordoba-Mosquera , 212 F.3d 1194, 1196 (11 th Cir. 2000) (defenda 2005Breard, 523 U.S. at 377 , 118 S.Ct. 1352 (stating that "it is extremely doubtful that the violation should result in the overturning of a final judgment of conviction without some showing that the violation had an effect on the trial” and noting that defendant’s trial attorneys "were likely far better able to explain the United States legal system to him than any consular official would have been”); Cardenas, 405 F.3d at 253-54 (defendant failed to show that he was harmed by any lack of consular notification); United States v. Cordoba-Mosquera, 212 F.3d 1194, 1196 (11th Cir.2000) (defendants n | 2 | 2 |
Commonwealth v. Diemergreen2 sentences2005See Commonwealth v. Diemer, 57 Mass.App.Ct. 677 , 785 N.E.2d 1237, 1243-45 (2003), cert. denied, 540 U.S. 1150 , 124 S.Ct. 1144 , 157 L.Ed.2d 1044 (2004) (collecting cases and joining those courts which have held that suppression of evidence for a Vienna Convention violation is not an available remedy). 37 . 2001 I.CJ. 104 (June 27, 2001). 38 . 2004 I.CJ. 128 (March 31, 2004). 39 . 2005See Commonwealth v. Diemer, 57 Mass.App.Ct. 677 , 785 N.E.2d 1237, 1243-45 (2003), cert. denied, 540 U.S. 1150 , 124 S.Ct. 1144 , 157 L.Ed.2d 1044 (2004) (collecting cases and joining those courts which have held that suppression of evidence for a Vienna Convention violation is not an available remedy). 37 . 2001 I.CJ. 104 (June 27, 2001). 38 . 2004 I.CJ. 128 (March 31, 2004). 39 . | 2 | 2 |
English v. Vazquezgreen2 sentences2005See Commonwealth v. Diemer, 57 Mass.App.Ct. 677 , 785 N.E.2d 1237, 1243-45 (2003), cert. denied, 540 U.S. 1150 , 124 S.Ct. 1144 , 157 L.Ed.2d 1044 (2004) (collecting cases and joining those courts which have held that suppression of evidence for a Vienna Convention violation is not an available remedy). 37 . 2001 I.CJ. 104 (June 27, 2001). 38 . 2004 I.CJ. 128 (March 31, 2004). 39 . 2005See Commonwealth v. Diemer, 57 Mass.App.Ct. 677 , 785 N.E.2d 1237, 1243-45 (2003), cert. denied, 540 U.S. 1150 , 124 S.Ct. 1144 , 157 L.Ed.2d 1044 (2004) (collecting cases and joining those courts which have held that suppression of evidence for a Vienna Convention violation is not an available remedy). 37 . 2001 I.CJ. 104 (June 27, 2001). 38 . 2004 I.CJ. 128 (March 31, 2004). 39 . | 2 | 2 |
United States v. Oscar Villa-Fabelagreen2 sentences2005In United States v. Villa-Fabela, 882 F.2d 434, 440 (9th Cir.1989), the Ninth Circuit set out a more generalized test for demonstrating actual prejudice for a Vienna Convention violation. 2005In United States v. Villa-Fabela, 882 F.2d 434, 440 (9th Cir.1989), the Ninth Circuit set out a more generalized test for demonstrating actual prejudice for a Vienna Convention violation. | 2 | 2 |
United States v. Arboleda A. Ortiz, United States of America v. German Sinisterra, United States of America v. Plutarco Tellogreen2 sentences2005Breard , 523 U.S. at 377 (stating that "it is extremely doubtful that the violation should result in the overturning of a final judgment of conviction without some showing that the violation had an effect on the trial" and noting that defendant's trial attorneys "were likely far better able to explain the United States legal system to him than any consular official would have been"); United States v. Cardenas , 405 F.3d at 253-55 (defendant failed to show that he was harmed by any lack of consular notification); United States v. Cordoba-Mosquera , 212 F.3d 1194, 1196 (11 th Cir. 2000) (defenda 2005Breard, 523 U.S. at 377 , 118 S.Ct. 1352 (stating that "it is extremely doubtful that the violation should result in the overturning of a final judgment of conviction without some showing that the violation had an effect on the trial” and noting that defendant’s trial attorneys "were likely far better able to explain the United States legal system to him than any consular official would have been”); Cardenas, 405 F.3d at 253-54 (defendant failed to show that he was harmed by any lack of consular notification); United States v. Cordoba-Mosquera, 212 F.3d 1194, 1196 (11th Cir.2000) (defendants n | 2 | 2 |
Cardenas v. Dretkegreen2 sentences2005Breard , 523 U.S. at 377 (stating that "it is extremely doubtful that the violation should result in the overturning of a final judgment of conviction without some showing that the violation had an effect on the trial" and noting that defendant's trial attorneys "were likely far better able to explain the United States legal system to him than any consular official would have been"); United States v. Cardenas , 405 F.3d at 253-55 (defendant failed to show that he was harmed by any lack of consular notification); United States v. Cordoba-Mosquera , 212 F.3d 1194, 1196 (11 th Cir. 2000) (defenda 2005Breard, 523 U.S. at 377 , 118 S.Ct. 1352 (stating that "it is extremely doubtful that the violation should result in the overturning of a final judgment of conviction without some showing that the violation had an effect on the trial” and noting that defendant’s trial attorneys "were likely far better able to explain the United States legal system to him than any consular official would have been”); Cardenas, 405 F.3d at 253-54 (defendant failed to show that he was harmed by any lack of consular notification); United States v. Cordoba-Mosquera, 212 F.3d 1194, 1196 (11th Cir.2000) (defendants n | 2 | 2 |
Koons Buick Pontiac GMC, Inc. v. Nighgreen2 sentences2005See Commonwealth v. Diemer, 57 Mass.App.Ct. 677 , 785 N.E.2d 1237, 1243-45 (2003), cert. denied, 540 U.S. 1150 , 124 S.Ct. 1144 , 157 L.Ed.2d 1044 (2004) (collecting cases and joining those courts which have held that suppression of evidence for a Vienna Convention violation is not an available remedy). 37 . 2001 I.CJ. 104 (June 27, 2001). 38 . 2004 I.CJ. 128 (March 31, 2004). 39 . 2005See Commonwealth v. Diemer, 57 Mass.App.Ct. 677 , 785 N.E.2d 1237, 1243-45 (2003), cert. denied, 540 U.S. 1150 , 124 S.Ct. 1144 , 157 L.Ed.2d 1044 (2004) (collecting cases and joining those courts which have held that suppression of evidence for a Vienna Convention violation is not an available remedy). 37 . 2001 I.CJ. 104 (June 27, 2001). 38 . 2004 I.CJ. 128 (March 31, 2004). 39 . | 1 | 1 |
Preobrazhenskaya v. Mercy Hall Infirmarygreen2 sentences2005See Commonwealth v. Diemer, 57 Mass.App.Ct. 677 , 785 N.E.2d 1237, 1243-45 (2003), cert. denied, 540 U.S. 1150 , 124 S.Ct. 1144 , 157 L.Ed.2d 1044 (2004) (collecting cases and joining those courts which have held that suppression of evidence for a Vienna Convention violation is not an available remedy). 37 . 2001 I.CJ. 104 (June 27, 2001). 38 . 2004 I.CJ. 128 (March 31, 2004). 39 . 2005See Commonwealth v. Diemer, 57 Mass.App.Ct. 677 , 785 N.E.2d 1237, 1243-45 (2003), cert. denied, 540 U.S. 1150 , 124 S.Ct. 1144 , 157 L.Ed.2d 1044 (2004) (collecting cases and joining those courts which have held that suppression of evidence for a Vienna Convention violation is not an available remedy). 37 . 2001 I.CJ. 104 (June 27, 2001). 38 . 2004 I.CJ. 128 (March 31, 2004). 39 . | 1 | 1 |
Garcia v. Stategreen1 sentence2001See Garcia v. State, 887 S.W.2d 862, 878 (Tex.Crim.App.1994). [4] As to this issue, the State argues that limiting instructions were not required because Article 38.36 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure allows the State to offer testimony as to all the relevant facts and circumstances surrounding the killing and previous relationship between the applicant and L.W. | 1 | 1 |
Cardona v. Stategreen2 sentences2000Using similar language, the Third Court of Appeals also labeled the Vienna Convention’s instruction a “right.” See Cardona v. State, 973 S.W.2d 412, 417 (Tex.App. — Austin 1998). 2000Using similar language, the Third Court of Appeals also labeled the Vienna Convention's instruction a "right." See Cardona v. State, 973 S.W.2d 412, 417 (Tex.App.-Austin 1998). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Sierra v. Stategreen2 sentences2018Id. at 350 ; see also Sierra, 218 S.W.3d at 88 . 2014The Court in Sanchez-Llamas also noted that, if a defendant raises an Article 36 violation at trial, “a court can make appropriate accommodations to ensure that the defendant secures, to the extent possible, the benefits of consular assistance.” Id. at 350 , 126 S.Ct. at 2682 ; see also Sierra, 218 S.W.3d at 88 (noting that Supreme Court has held that if defendant raises Vienna Convention violation at trial, trial court can make accommodations to ensure benefits of consular assistance). | 1 | 3 |
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Sanchez-Llamas v. Oregon
green
2 sentences2014The Court in Sanchez-Llamas also noted that, if a defendant raises an Article 36 violation at trial, “a court can make appropriate accommodations to ensure that the defendant secures, to the extent possible, the benefits of consular assistance.” Id. at 350 , 126 S.Ct. at 2682 ; see also Sierra, 218 S.W.3d at 88 (noting that Supreme Court has held that if defendant raises Vienna Convention violation at trial, trial court can make accommodations to ensure benefits of consular assistance). 2014The Court in Sanchez-Llamas also noted that, if a defendant raises an Article 36 violation at trial, “a court can make appropriate accommodations to ensure that the defendant secures, to the extent possible, the benefits of consular assistance.” Id. at 350 , 126 S.Ct. at 2682 ; see also Sierra, 218 S.W.3d at 88 (noting that Supreme Court has held that if defendant raises Vienna Convention violation at trial, trial court can make accommodations to ensure benefits of consular assistance). | 2 | 2014–2018 |
Teague v. Lane
green
2 sentences2005The federal district court concluded that (1) applicant defaulted on his Vienna Convention claim under the “adequate and independent state procedural rule” applied by the Texas state courts; (2) the Vienna Convention did not create individually enforceable rights and, hence, no judicial remedy is available for its enforcement; and, alternatively, (3) if the Vienna Convention did create individual rights, applicant was barred from asserting them by federal retroactivity principles set out by the Supreme Court in Teague v. Lane, 489 U.S. 288 , 109 S.Ct. 1060 , 103 L.Ed.2d 334 (1989); and (4) app 2005The federal district court concluded that (1) applicant defaulted on his Vienna Convention claim under the “adequate and independent state procedural rule” applied by the Texas state courts; (2) the Vienna Convention did not create individually enforceable rights and, hence, no judicial remedy is available for its enforcement; and, alternatively, (3) if the Vienna Convention did create individual rights, applicant was barred from asserting them by federal retroactivity principles set out by the Supreme Court in Teague v. Lane, 489 U.S. 288 , 109 S.Ct. 1060 , 103 L.Ed.2d 334 (1989); and (4) app | 2 | 2005–2005 |
Sorto v. State
green
2 sentences2014In Sorto, the court of criminal appeals observed that there was no evidence in the record that the consulate in Houston regularly provided any assistance at all to its detained foreign nationals and that no showing of prejudice had been made because the appellant’s “assertions of prejudice are entirely speculative and belied by the record evidence and applicable precedent.” 173 S.W.3d at 487–88. 2014In Sorto, the court of criminal appeals observed that there was no evidence in the record that the consulate in Houston regularly provided any assistance at all to its detained foreign nationals and that no showing of prejudice had been made because the appellant’s “assertions of prejudice are entirely speculative and belied by the record evidence and applicable precedent.” 173 S.W.3d at 487–88. | 1 | 2014–2014 |
Medellin v. Texas
green
2 sentences2008On this, his second subsequent application for writ of habeas corpus, and in his motion for a stay of execution, applicant again argues that new developments require us to provide him with judicial review and reconsideration of his Vienna Convention claim under Avena. 2 Applicant argues that these new developments consist of: (1) the United States Supreme Court’s decision in Medellin v. Texas, — U.S. -, 128 S.Ct. 1346 , 170 L.Ed.2d 190 (2008), affirming and clarifying this Court’s opinion in applicant’s case; (2) the fact that a bill has been introduced in the United States House of Representa 2008On this, his second subsequent application for writ of habeas corpus, and in his motion for a stay of execution, applicant again argues that new developments require us to provide him with judicial review and reconsideration of his Vienna Convention claim under Avena. 2 Applicant argues that these new developments consist of: (1) the United States Supreme Court’s decision in Medellin v. Texas, — U.S. -, 128 S.Ct. 1346 , 170 L.Ed.2d 190 (2008), affirming and clarifying this Court’s opinion in applicant’s case; (2) the fact that a bill has been introduced in the United States House of Representa | 1 | 2008–2008 |
Ibarra v. State
green
2 sentences2000In Ibarra v. State, 11 S.W.3d 189 (Tex.Crim.App.1999), we rejected a defendant's claim as being procedurally defaulted, because the defendant did not complain about the issue until a hearing on his motion for new trial. 2000In Ibarra v. State, 11 S.W.3d 189 (Tex.Crim.App.1999), we rejected a defendant's claim as being procedurally defaulted, because the defendant did not complain about the issue until a hearing on his motion for new trial. | 1 | 2000–2000 |
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.