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.
9 Texas opinions name it 2 courts 1993–2015 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 |
|---|---|---|
Price v. Stategreen2 sentences1995The Court of Criminal Appeals considered the same issue as it applies in misdemeanor cases in Price v. State, 866 S.W.2d 606, 613 (Tex.Crim.App.1993) and the Court held that the failure to admonish the defendant of the consequences of a violation of deferred adjudication probation after the defendant made a voluntary guilty plea in a misdemeanor case is not reversible error. 1995Price v. State, 866 S.W.2d 606, 613 (Tex.Crim.App.1993). | 4 | 5 |
Price v. Stategreen2 sentences1994Also, see and compare Price v. State, 846 S.W.2d 37 (Tex.App.—Dallas 1992), rev’d, 866 S.W.2d 606 (Tex.Cr.App.1993). 3 *427 In the present felony casé, the trial court failed to comply with the mandatory statutory requirement. 1994See and compare Price v. State, 846 S.W.2d 37 (Tex.App. — Dallas 1992), rev’d, 866 S.W.2d 606 (Tex.Cr.App.1993). | 1 | 3 |
Graham v. Stategreen2 sentences1995Tex. Code CRIM.PROcAnn. art. 42.12 § 5(a) (Vernon Supp.1995); Graham v. State, 873 S.W.2d 709, 710 (Tex.App. — Eastland 1994, no pet.); Ray v. State, 877 S.W.2d 425, 426 (Tex.App. — Eastland 1994, pet. granted). 1994(Emphasis added) In interpreting Article 42.12, section 6(a) and (b), this court recently held in Graham v. State, 873 S.W.2d 709 (Tex.App.—Eastland 1994, no pet’n), that in deferred adjudication proceedings in felony cases the trial court must inform the defendant of the possible consequences of a violation of probation. | 1 | 2 |
In Re KWSgreen1 sentence2015D.A.W. v. State, 535 S.W.2d 21, 22 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 1976, writ ref'd n.r.e.) ("Although § 53.06(e) prohibits the child's waiving of service of summons, ... there is apparently nothing to prevent a child from waiving a defect in the summons.”) (emphasis in original); In re K.W.S., 521 S.W.2d 890, 894 (Tex.App.-Beaumont 1975, no writ) ("We would face an entirely different question if our record showed an explanation by the trial judge of the rights of the child and the possible consequences of a waiver; and, that the child, after such explanation and understanding, voluntarily (wit | 1 | 1 |
DAW v. Stategreen1 sentence2015D.A.W. v. State, 535 S.W.2d 21, 22 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 1976, writ ref'd n.r.e.) ("Although § 53.06(e) prohibits the child's waiving of service of summons, ... there is apparently nothing to prevent a child from waiving a defect in the summons.”) (emphasis in original); In re K.W.S., 521 S.W.2d 890, 894 (Tex.App.-Beaumont 1975, no writ) ("We would face an entirely different question if our record showed an explanation by the trial judge of the rights of the child and the possible consequences of a waiver; and, that the child, after such explanation and understanding, voluntarily (wit | 1 | 1 |
Ray v. Stategreen1 sentence1995Tex. Code CRIM.PROcAnn. art. 42.12 § 5(a) (Vernon Supp.1995); Graham v. State, 873 S.W.2d 709, 710 (Tex.App. — Eastland 1994, no pet.); Ray v. State, 877 S.W.2d 425, 426 (Tex.App. — Eastland 1994, pet. granted). | 1 | 1 |
Empy v. Stategreen2 sentences1993It reversed the conviction for reasons given in deciding the first point of error presented by appellant, that his plea of guilty was not made knowingly and voluntarily in that "the trial court failed properly to admonish him of the possible consequences of a violation of his deferred-adjudication probation" under § 5(a). [4] Rejecting opposing contentions on the part of the State that appellant was not "entitled to these admonishments in this misdemeanor case" essentially in light of Empy v. State, 571 S.W.2d 526, at 529-530 (Tex.Cr. 1993It reversed the conviction for reasons given in deciding the first point of error presented by appellant, that his plea of guilty was not made knowingly and voluntarily in that “the trial court failed properly to admonish him of the possible consequences of a violation of his deferred-adjudication probation” under § 5(a). 4 Rejecting opposing contentions on the part of the State that appellant was not “entitled to these admonishments in this misdemeanor case” essentially in light of Empy v. State, 571 S.W.2d 526, at 529-530 (Tex.Cr.App.1978), the court of appeals sustained the first point of e | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Texas. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Christian v. State
green
2 sentences1995On the day he entered his guilty pleas, however, appellant was informed in writing: “If you receive deferred adjudication and later it is found that you have violated your probation you may then be found guilty and the Court can then set your punishment anywhere within the range provided by law.” The State argues that this written admonition satisfied the article 42.12, section 5(a) notice requirement, citing Chris *184 tian v. State, 870 S.W.2d 86 (Tex.App.— Dallas 1998, no pet.). 1995On the day he entered his guilty pleas, however, appellant was informed in writing: "If you receive deferred adjudication and later it is found that you have violated your probation you may then be found guilty and the Court can then set your punishment anywhere within the range provided by law." The State argues that this written admonition satisfied the article 42.12, section 5(a) notice requirement, citing Christian v. State , 870 S.W.2d 86 (Tex. App.--Dallas 1993, no pet.). | 2 | 1995–1995 |
Moran v. Burbine
green
2 sentences1995Colorado v. Spring, 479 U.S. 564, 574-75 , 107 S.Ct. 851, 857-58 , 93 L.Ed.2d 954 (1987); Moran v. Burbine, 475 U.S. 412, 422-23 , 106 S.Ct. 1135, 1141-42 , 89 L.Ed.2d 410 (1986). 1995Colorado v. Spring, 479 U.S. 564, 574-75 , 107 S.Ct. 851, 857-58 , 93 L.Ed.2d 954 (1987); Moran v. Burbine, 475 U.S. 412, 422-23 , 106 S.Ct. 1135, 1141-42 , 89 L.Ed.2d 410 (1986). | 1 | 1995–1995 |
Colorado v. Spring
green
2 sentences1995Colorado v. Spring, 479 U.S. 564, 574-75 , 107 S.Ct. 851, 857-58 , 93 L.Ed.2d 954 (1987); Moran v. Burbine, 475 U.S. 412, 422-23 , 106 S.Ct. 1135, 1141-42 , 89 L.Ed.2d 410 (1986). 1995Colorado v. Spring, 479 U.S. 564, 574-75 , 107 S.Ct. 851, 857-58 , 93 L.Ed.2d 954 (1987); Moran v. Burbine, 475 U.S. 412, 422-23 , 106 S.Ct. 1135, 1141-42 , 89 L.Ed.2d 410 (1986). | 1 | 1995–1995 |
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.