crime of any defense in Texas

1999To constitute an ex post facto law, a statute must: (1) punish as a crime an act previously committed that was innocent when done; (2) make more burdensome the punishment lor a crime after its commission; (3) deprive a person charged with a crime of any defense available at the time when the act was committed; Collins v. Youngblood, 497 U.S. 37, 42 , 110 S.Ct. 2715, 2719 , 111 L.Ed.2d 30 (1990) (citing Beazell v. Ohio, 269 U.S. 167, 169-70 , 46 S.Ct. 68, 68-69 , 70 L.Ed. 216 (1925)); Ex Parte Hallmark, 883 S.W.2d 672, 674 (Tex.Crim.App.1994); Grimes v. State, 807 S.W.2d 582, 586-87 (Tex.Crim.A

1996In conducting an analysis under the state or federal constitutions of a claimed ex post facto violation, we determine whether the statute (1) punishes as a crime an act previously committed which was innocent when done; (2) makes more burdensome the punishment for a crime after its commission; or (3) deprives a person charged with a crime of any defense available at the time when the act was committed. 5 Collins v. Youngblood, 497 U.S. 37, 42 , 110 S.Ct. 2715, 2719 , 111 L.Ed.2d 30 (1990) (citing Beazell v. Ohio, 269 U.S. 167, 169-70 , 46 S.Ct. 68, 68-69 , 70 L.Ed. 216 (1925)); Ex Parte Hallma

2020An ex post facto law is one that “(1) punishes as a crime an act previously committed 29 which was innocent when done; (2) changes the punishment and inflicts a greater punishment than the law attached to the criminal offense when committed; or (3) deprives a person charged with a crime of any defense available at the time the act was committed.” Rodriguez, 93 S.W.3d at 66 (citing Collins v. Youngblood, 497 U.S. 37 , 42–44 (1990); In re J.G., 495 S.W.3d at 366 .

2013App. 1995). 2 an act previously committed which was innocent when done; 2) changes the punishment and inflicts a greater punishment than the law attached to a criminal offense when committed; or 3) deprives a person charged with a crime of any defense available at the time the act was committed.” Rodriguez v. State, 93 S.W.3d 60, 66 (Tex. Crim.

1999To constitute an ex post facto law, a statute must: (1) punish as a crime an act previously committed that was innocent when done; (2) make more burdensome the punishment lor a crime after its commission; (3) deprive a person charged with a crime of any defense available at the time when the act was committed; Collins v. Youngblood, 497 U.S. 37, 42 , 110 S.Ct. 2715, 2719 , 111 L.Ed.2d 30 (1990) (citing Beazell v. Ohio, 269 U.S. 167, 169-70 , 46 S.Ct. 68, 68-69 , 70 L.Ed. 216 (1925)); Ex Parte Hallmark, 883 S.W.2d 672, 674 (Tex.Crim.App.1994); Grimes v. State, 807 S.W.2d 582, 586-87 (Tex.Crim.A

1996In conducting an analysis under the state or federal constitutions of a claimed ex post facto violation, we determine whether the statute (1) punishes as a crime an act previously committed which was innocent when done; (2) makes more burdensome the punishment for a crime after its commission; or (3) deprives a person charged with a crime of any defense available at the time when the act was committed. 5 Collins v. Youngblood, 497 U.S. 37, 42 , 110 S.Ct. 2715, 2719 , 111 L.Ed.2d 30 (1990) (citing Beazell v. Ohio, 269 U.S. 167, 169-70 , 46 S.Ct. 68, 68-69 , 70 L.Ed. 216 (1925)); Ex Parte Hallma

2007See Johnson v. State, 930 S.W.2d 589, 591 (Tex.Crim.App.1996); Grimes, 807 S.W.2d at 587 . [8] Article I, section 16 states that no bill of attainder, ex post facto law, retroactive law, or any law impairing the obligation of contracts, shall be made.

2007See Johnson v. State, 930 S.W.2d 589, 591 (Tex.Crim.App.1996); Grimes, 807 S.W.2d at 587 . 8 .

2020An ex post facto law is one that “(1) punishes as a crime an act previously committed 29 which was innocent when done; (2) changes the punishment and inflicts a greater punishment than the law attached to the criminal offense when committed; or (3) deprives a person charged with a crime of any defense available at the time the act was committed.” Rodriguez, 93 S.W.3d at 66 (citing Collins v. Youngblood, 497 U.S. 37 , 42–44 (1990); In re J.G., 495 S.W.3d at 366 .

1999To constitute an ex post facto law, a statute must: (1) punish as a crime an act previously committed that was innocent when done; (2) make more burdensome the punishment lor a crime after its commission; (3) deprive a person charged with a crime of any defense available at the time when the act was committed; Collins v. Youngblood, 497 U.S. 37, 42 , 110 S.Ct. 2715, 2719 , 111 L.Ed.2d 30 (1990) (citing Beazell v. Ohio, 269 U.S. 167, 169-70 , 46 S.Ct. 68, 68-69 , 70 L.Ed. 216 (1925)); Ex Parte Hallmark, 883 S.W.2d 672, 674 (Tex.Crim.App.1994); Grimes v. State, 807 S.W.2d 582, 586-87 (Tex.Crim.A

2008Carmell v. Texas, 529 U.S. 513, 522 , 120 S.Ct. 1620, 1627 , 146 L.Ed.2d 577 (2000); Collins v. Youngblood, 497 U.S. 37, 42 , 110 S.Ct. 2715, 2719 , 111 L.Ed.2d 30 (1990); Ex Parte Davis, 947 S.W.2d 216, 219-20 (Tex.Crim.App.1996); Dean v. State, 60 S.W.3d 217, 219-20 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 2001, pet. ref'd).

2007Collins v. Youngblood, 497 U.S. 37, 42-44 , 110 S.Ct. 2715, 2719-20 , 111 L.Ed.2d 30 (1990); Ex parte Davis, 947 S.W.2d 216, 219-20 (Tex.Crim.App.1996); Rodriguez v. State, 93 S.W.3d 60, 66-67 (Tex.Crim.App.2002). 4 .

2020See Peugh v. United States, 569 U.S. 530 , 538–39 (2013); Rodriguez v. State, 93 S.W.3d 60, 66 (Tex. Crim.

2018See Peugh v. United States , 569 U.S. 530 , 538-39, 133 S.Ct. 2072 , 186 L.Ed.2d 84 (2013) ; Collins v. Youngblood , 497 U.S. 37 , 41-44, 110 S.Ct. 2715 , 111 L.Ed.2d 30 (1990) ; Rodriguez , 93 S.W.3d at 66 .

2004Carmell v. Texas, 529 U.S. 513, 522-25 , 120 S.Ct. 1620 , 146 L.Ed.2d 577 (2000); Collins v. Youngblood, 497 U.S. 37, 42-43 , 110 S.Ct. 2715 , 111 L.Ed.2d 30 (1990); Rodriguez v. State, 93 S.W.3d 60, 66 (Tex.Crim.App.2002); Johnson v. State, 930 S.W.2d 589, 591 (Tex.Crim.App.1996); Lopez v. State, 928 S.W.2d 528, 534 (Tex.Crim.App.1996); Grimes v. State, 807 S.W.2d 582, 584-86 (Tex.Crim.App.1991). 5 Appellant relies upon the second category above.

2001Lopez v. State, 928 S.W.2d 528, 534 (Tex.Crim.App.1996).

2020A law is also an impermissible ex post facto law if it “alters the legal rules of evidence, and receives less, or different, testimony, than the law required at the time of the commission of the offence, in order to convict the offender.” Carmell v. Texas, 529 U.S. 513, 530 (2000).

2016Rodriguez v. State, 93 S.W.3d .60, 66 (Tex.Crim.App.2002), A law is. also an impermissible ex post facto law if it “alters the legal rules of evidence, and receives less, or different, testimony, than the law required at the time of the commission of the offence, in order to convict the offender.” Carmell v. Texas, 529 U.S. 513, 530 , 120 S.Ct. 1620, 1681 , 146 L.Ed.2d 577 (2000).

2005I, ' 10; Calder v. Bull , 3 U.S. (3 Dall.) 386 , 396 B 97, 1 L.Ed. 648 , 657 B 59 (1798). [1] Our state constitution also prohibits ex post facto laws. [2] An ex post facto law is one that: (1) punishes as a crime conduct previously committed, which was innocent when done; (2) makes more burdensome the punishment of a crime after its commission; (3) deprives one charged with a crime of any defense available at the time when the act was committed; or (4) alters the legal rules of evidence, and receives less or different testimony, than the law required at the time of the commission of the offen

2005I, ' 10; Calder v. Bull , 3 U.S. (3 Dall.) 386 , 396 B 97, 1 L.Ed. 648 , 657 B 59 (1798). [1] Our state constitution also prohibits ex post facto laws. [2] An ex post facto law is one that: (1) punishes as a crime conduct previously committed, which was innocent when done; (2) makes more burdensome the punishment of a crime after its commission; (3) deprives one charged with a crime of any defense available at the time when the act was committed; or (4) alters the legal rules of evidence, and receives less or different testimony, than the law required at the time of the commission of the offen

2020Holcomb, 146 S.W.3d at 730–31.

2008Holcomb v. State , 146 S.W.3d 723, 730-31 (Tex. App.--Austin 2004, no pet.); see Lynce v. Mathis , 519 U.S. 433 , 441 n.13 (1997).

2008Holcomb v. State , 146 S.W.3d 723, 730-31 (Tex. App.--Austin 2004, no pet.); see Lynce v. Mathis , 519 U.S. 433 , 441 n.13 (1997).

2008Holcomb v. State, 146 S.W.3d 723, 730-31 (Tex. App.—Austin 2004, no pet.); see Lynce v. Mathis, 519 U.S. 433 , 441 n.13 (1997).

2015Pp. 3-14. (a) The definition of an ex post-facto law as one that (1) punishes as a crime an act previously committed, which was innocent when done, (2) makes more burdensome the punishment for a crime, after its commission, or (3) deprives one charged with a crime of any defense available according to law at the time when the act was committed, Beazell v. Ohio, 269 U.S. 167 , is faithful to this Court's best knowledge.of the original underst~rding of the Clause: Legislatures may not retroactively ~lter the definition of crimes or increase the punishment for criminal acts.

1999To constitute an ex post facto law, a statute must: (1) punish as a crime an act previously committed that was innocent when done; (2) make more burdensome the punishment lor a crime after its commission; (3) deprive a person charged with a crime of any defense available at the time when the act was committed; Collins v. Youngblood, 497 U.S. 37, 42 , 110 S.Ct. 2715, 2719 , 111 L.Ed.2d 30 (1990) (citing Beazell v. Ohio, 269 U.S. 167, 169-70 , 46 S.Ct. 68, 68-69 , 70 L.Ed. 216 (1925)); Ex Parte Hallmark, 883 S.W.2d 672, 674 (Tex.Crim.App.1994); Grimes v. State, 807 S.W.2d 582, 586-87 (Tex.Crim.A

2020Ortiz, 93 S.W.3d at 91 ; Castillo v. State, 573 S.W.3d 869, 876 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2019, pet. ref’d). 4 An ex post facto law is one that: (1) punishes as a crime an act previously committed that was innocent when done; (2) aggravates a crime, or makes it greater than it was, when committed; (3) changes the punishment and inflicts greater punishment than the law attached to the criminal offense when committed; or (4) deprives a person charged with a crime of any defense available at the time the act was committed.

2010App. 2002). 11 Sepeda v. State, 280 S.W.3d 398, 401 (Tex. App.—Amarillo 2008, pet. ref’d) (collecting cases).

2010See State v. Verhoeven, 151 S.W.3d 637, 643 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2004, pet. ref’d). 5 “An ex post facto law: 1) punishes as a crime an act previously committed which was innocent when done; 2) changes the punishment and inflicts a greater punishment than the law attached to a criminal offense when committed; or 3) deprives a person charged with a crime of any defense available at the time the act was committed.” Rodriguez v. State, 93 S.W.3d 60, 66 (Tex. Crim.

2008Carmell v. Texas, 529 U.S. 513, 522 , 120 S.Ct. 1620, 1627 , 146 L.Ed.2d 577 (2000); Collins v. Youngblood, 497 U.S. 37, 42 , 110 S.Ct. 2715, 2719 , 111 L.Ed.2d 30 (1990); Ex Parte Davis, 947 S.W.2d 216, 219-20 (Tex.Crim.App.1996); Dean v. State, 60 S.W.3d 217, 219-20 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 2001, pet. ref'd).

2007See State v. Anderson , 917 S.W.2d 92, 99-100 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1996, pet. ref’d) (holding that personal knowledge gained by a police officer from a previous search may establish probable cause necessary for second search warrant if affidavit sets forth sufficient underlying facts). 3: An ex post facto law (1) punishes as a crime an act previously committed which was innocent when done, (2) changes the punishment and inflicts a greater punishment than the law attached to a criminal offense when committed, or (3) deprives a person charged with a crime of any defense available at t

2007Cf. Ieppert v. State, 908 S.W.2d 217, 220 (Tex.Crim.App.1995) (holding that no preservation is required to raise ex post facto complaint in criminal cases). [7] A true ex post facto law is a law that (1) punishes as a crime an act previously committed that was innocent when done, (2) changes the punishment and inflicts a greater punishment than the law attached to the criminal offense when committed, or (3) deprives a person charged with a crime of any defense available at the time the act was committed.

2002See Ex parte Scales , 853 S.W.2d 586, 588 (Tex. Crim.

2001Collins v. Youngblood, 497 U.S. 37, 42-43 , 110 S.Ct. 2715, 2719 , 111 L.Ed.2d 30 (1990); Ex parte Hallmark, 883 S.W.2d 672, 674 (Tex.Crim.App.1994); Ex parte Cole, 43 S.W.3d 713, 715 (Tex.App.—Fort Worth 2001, no pet.).

1999Ex parte Davis, 947 S.W.2d 216, 219-20 (Tex.Crim.App.1996); Johnson v. State, 930 S.W.2d 589, 591 (Tex.Crim.App.1996); Lopez v. State, 928 S.W.2d 528, 534 (Tex.Crim.App.1996); Ex parte Hallmark, 883 S.W.2d 672, 674 (Tex.Crim.App.1994); White v. State, 988 S.W.2d 277, 278 (Tex.App.-Texarkana 1999, no pet. h.).