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.
11 Texas opinions name it 2 courts 2006–2015 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 |
|---|---|---|
Byrd v. Stategreen2 sentences2015App. 2007) (Womack, J., concurring) (quoting Byrd v. State, 192 S.W.3d 69, 77 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2006, pet. refd) (Frost, J., concurring)) ("[T]he jury may base its assessment of punishment in part on consideration of a sentenced defendant's parole eligibihty under the formula contained in the instruction; however, a jury may not base its assessment ofpunishment on speculation as to when, if ever, the defendant may be released on parole after becoming eligible for parole."); Waters v. State, 330 S.W.3d 368,373-74 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2010, pet. refd) (adopting Judge Womack's conc 2015App. 2007) (Womack, J., concurring) (“‘[T]he jury may base its assessment of punishment in part on consideration of a sentenced defendant’s parole eligibility under the formula contained in the instruction; however, a jury may not base its assessment of punishment on speculation as to when, if ever, the defendant may be released on parole after becoming eligible for parole.’”) (quoting Byrd v. State, 192 S.W.3d 69, 77 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2006, pet. ref’d) (Frost, J., concurring)); Waters v. State, 330 S.W.3d 368 , 373–74 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2010, pet. ref’d) (adopting Judge Womac | 9 | 9 |
Hawkins v. Stategreen2 sentences2006See Ross, 133 S.W.3d at 623-24 ; Turner, 87 S.W.3d at 116-17 ; Dumesnil, 2002 WL 58825 , at *5-7; see also Hawkins v. State, 135 S.W.3d 72, 74, 77-85 (Tex.Crim.App.2004) (analyzing trial court’s ruling on motion for mistrial in case in which prosecutor improperly speculated that appellant would be released on parole as soon as he was eligible). 2006See Ross, 133 S.W.3d at 623-24 ; Turner, 87 S.W.3d at 116-17 ; Dumesnil, 2002 WL 58825 , at *5-7; see also Hawkins v. State, 135 S.W.3d 72, 74, 77-85 (Tex.Crim.App. 2004) (analyzing trial court's ruling on motion for mistrial in case in which prosecutor improperly speculated that appellant would be released on parole as soon as he was eligible). | 2 | 2 |
Ross v. Stategreen2 sentences2006See Ross, 133 S.W.3d at 623-24 ; Turner, 87 S.W.3d at 116-17 ; Dumesnil, 2002 WL 58825 , at *5-7 (indicating this construction of article 37.07, section 4(a) in determining appellant suffered egregious harm as a result of trial court's use of article 37.07, section 4(a) instruction stating that defendant would be eligible for parole after serving one-fourth of his sentence or fifteen years, whichever is less, in case in which defendant would not actually be eligible for parole until he had served one-half of his thirty-year sentence, whichever is less). 2006See Ross, 133 S.W.3d at 623-24 ; Turner, 87 S.W.3d at 116-17 ; Dumesnil, 2002 WL 58825 , at *5-7; see also Hawkins v. State, 135 S.W.3d 72, 74, 77-85 (Tex.Crim.App. 2004) (analyzing trial court's ruling on motion for mistrial in case in which prosecutor improperly speculated that appellant would be released on parole as soon as he was eligible). | 2 | 2 |
Waters v. Stategreen2 sentences2015App. 2007) (Womack, J., concurring) (quoting Byrd v. State, 192 S.W.3d 69, 77 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2006, pet. refd) (Frost, J., concurring)) ("[T]he jury may base its assessment of punishment in part on consideration of a sentenced defendant's parole eligibihty under the formula contained in the instruction; however, a jury may not base its assessment ofpunishment on speculation as to when, if ever, the defendant may be released on parole after becoming eligible for parole."); Waters v. State, 330 S.W.3d 368,373-74 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2010, pet. refd) (adopting Judge Womack's conc 2015App. 2007) (Womack, J., concurring) (“‘[T]he jury may base its assessment of punishment in part on consideration of a sentenced defendant’s parole eligibility under the formula contained in the instruction; however, a jury may not base its assessment of punishment on speculation as to when, if ever, the defendant may be released on parole after becoming eligible for parole.’”) (quoting Byrd v. State, 192 S.W.3d 69, 77 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2006, pet. ref’d) (Frost, J., concurring)); Waters v. State, 330 S.W.3d 368 , 373–74 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2010, pet. ref’d) (adopting Judge Womac | 1 | 4 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Texas. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Turner v. State
green
2 sentences2006See Ross, 133 S.W.3d at 623-24 ; Turner, 87 S.W.3d at 116-17 ; Dumesnil, 2002 WL 58825 , at *5-7 (indicating this construction of article 37.07, section 4(a) in determining appellant suffered egregious harm as a result of trial court's use of article 37.07, section 4(a) instruction stating that defendant would be eligible for parole after serving one-fourth of his sentence or fifteen years, whichever is less, in case in which defendant would not actually be eligible for parole until he had served one-half of his thirty-year sentence, whichever is less). 2006See Ross, 133 S.W.3d at 623-24 ; Turner, 87 S.W.3d at 116-17 ; Dumesnil, 2002 WL 58825 , at *5-7; see also Hawkins v. State, 135 S.W.3d 72, 74, 77-85 (Tex.Crim.App. 2004) (analyzing trial court's ruling on motion for mistrial in case in which prosecutor improperly speculated that appellant would be released on parole as soon as he was eligible). | 2 | 2006–2006 |
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.