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.
12 Texas opinions name it 2 courts 1976–2005 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 |
|---|---|---|
Reed v. Stategreen2 sentences1978When an appellant makes a voluntary and intelligent waiver of his right to appeal at the time of sentencing, such waiver is effective unless and until a timely notice of appeal is filed. . . . ” In Ex parte Dickey, 543 S.W.2d 99 (Tex.Cr.App.1976), we adopted the statement in Reed v. State, 516 S.W.2d 680 (Tex.Cr.App.1974), to the effect that a knowing and intelligent waiver of the right to appeal will prevent a defendant from appealing without consent of the trial court. 1976In Reed v. State, 516 S.W.2d 680, 682 (Tex.Cr.App. 1974), this Court wrote: ". . . | 2 | 3 |
Renfro v. Stategreen2 sentences1989Renfro v. State, 586 S.W.2d 496, 499-500 (Tex.Crim.App.1979), citing Thomas v. State, 550 S.W.2d 64, 68 (Tex.Crim.App. 1977) (emphasis added). 1989Renfro v. State, 586 S.W.2d 496, 499-500 (Tex.Crim.App.1979), citing Thomas v. State, 550 S.W.2d 64, 68 (Tex.Crim.App.1977) (emphasis added). | 2 | 2 |
Thomas v. Stategreen2 sentences1989Renfro v. State, 586 S.W.2d 496, 499-500 (Tex.Crim.App.1979), citing Thomas v. State, 550 S.W.2d 64, 68 (Tex.Crim.App. 1977) (emphasis added). 1989Renfro v. State, 586 S.W.2d 496, 499-500 (Tex.Crim.App.1979), citing Thomas v. State, 550 S.W.2d 64, 68 (Tex.Crim.App.1977) (emphasis added). | 1 | 2 |
Rodriguez v. Stategreen1 sentence1991Rodriguez v. State, 763 S.W.2d 893, 895 (Tex.App.—San Antonio 1988, pet. ref’d). | 1 | 1 |
Boykin v. Alabamagreen2 sentences1983Boykin v. Alabama, 395 U.S. 238, 242-43 , 89 S.Ct. 1709, 1712 , 23 L.Ed.2d 274, 279 (1969). 1983Boykin v. Alabama, 395 U.S. 238, 242-43 , 89 S.Ct. 1709, 1712 , 23 L.Ed.2d 274, 279 (1969). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Texas. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Sickles v. State
green
2 sentences2005Sickles v. State, 170 S.W.3d 298 (Tex.App.-Waco 2005, order). 2005Sickles v. State, 170 S.W.3d 298 (Tex.App.-Waco 2005, order). | 1 | 2005–2005 |
Miranda v. Arizona
green
2 sentences1985To be admissible, a confession must be taken in compliance with the warnings required by Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 , 86 S.Ct. 1602 , 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966) (incorporated in Tex.Code Crim.Proc.Ann. art. 38.22 (Vernon 1979)), and it must be voluntarily given. 1985To be admissible, a confession must be taken in compliance with the warnings required by Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 , 86 S.Ct. 1602 , 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966) (incorporated in Tex.Code Crim.Proc.Ann. art. 38.22 (Vernon 1979)), and it must be voluntarily given. | 1 | 1985–1985 |
Nash v. State
green
2 sentences1981“But bad guesses don’t have anything to do with ‘voluntary’ or ‘intelligent’ [waiver of the right to counsel].” “... we see dominating evidence in this case which points to a voluntary and intelligent waiver of counsel, based on a rather intelligent, although incorrect, guess.” Compare Nash, supra. Appellant’s complaint, it appears, is really that because he was deceived by his thinking, deceived because what happened in the past did not happen this time, this does not constitute waiver of counsel. 1981"But bad guesses don't have anything to do with `voluntary' or `intelligent' [waiver of the right to counsel]." "... we see dominating evidence in this case which points to a voluntary and intelligent waiver of counsel, based on a rather intelligent, although incorrect, guess." Compare Nash, supra. Appellant's complaint, it appears, is really that because he was deceived by his thinking, deceived because what happened in the past did not happen this time, this does not constitute waiver of counsel. | 1 | 1981–1981 |
Robles v. State
green
1 sentence1979Another closely analogous case is that of Robles v. State, 577 S.W.2d 699 (Tex.Cr.App.1979), in which the defendant requested different counsel and the trial court responded by giving the defendant the choice of (1) continuing with the same counsel, or (2) obtaining other retained counsel ready to go to trial immediately, or (3) representing himself. | 1 | 1979–1979 |
Ex Parte Dickey
green
1 sentence1978When an appellant makes a voluntary and intelligent waiver of his right to appeal at the time of sentencing, such waiver is effective unless and until a timely notice of appeal is filed. . . . ” In Ex parte Dickey, 543 S.W.2d 99 (Tex.Cr.App.1976), we adopted the statement in Reed v. State, 516 S.W.2d 680 (Tex.Cr.App.1974), to the effect that a knowing and intelligent waiver of the right to appeal will prevent a defendant from appealing without consent of the trial court. | 1 | 1978–1978 |
Abron v. State
green
1 sentence1976In Reed v. State, 516 S.W.2d 680, 682 (Tex.Cr.App.1974), this Court wrote: “. . .A knowing and intelligent waiver of the right to appeal would only prevent him from appealing without consent of the trial court. . . .” In Abron v. State, 531 S.W.2d 643 (Tex.Cr.App.1976), this Court wrote that the waiver of the right to appeal at the time of sentencing “is effective unless and until a timely notice of appeal is filed.” It appears that the better rule is found in the Reed case. | 1 | 1976–1976 |
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.