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 1981–2015 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 |
|---|---|---|
Rivera v. Stategreen2 sentences2009See Rivera, 123 S.W.3d at 32 (noting that the result of the proceeding would have been different had information been available to counsel which would have led to mitigating evidence sufficient to reduce accused’s sentence had counsel fulfilled duty to investigate). 2009See Rivera , 123 S.W.3d at 32 (noting that the result of the proceeding would have been different had information been available to counsel which would have led to mitigating evidence sufficient to reduce accused's sentence had counsel fulfilled duty to investigate). | 2 | 2 |
Kathy Yolande Miller v. Doug Dretke, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Divisiongreen2 sentences2009Analysis Here, the quantum of evidence already known to trial counsel at the second revocation hearing was that appellant was "a little bit slow in getting concepts across" and that he had "been with MHMR for a couple of years." Accordingly, the known evidence would lead a reasonable attorney to investigate further because even though trial counsel believed that appellant was competent, information that an accused is "suffering from mental and emotional injury" "[w]hile not presenting a potential bar to prosecution" is "significant in that it constitute[s] a basis for minimizing [the accused's 2009Analysis Here, the quantum of evidence already known to trial counsel at the second revocation hearing was that appellant was “a little bit slow in getting concepts across” and that he had “been with MHMR for a couple of years.” Accordingly, the known evidence would lead a reasonable attorney to investigate further because even though trial counsel believed that appellant was competent, information that an accused is “suffering from mental and emotional injury” “[w]hile not presenting a potential bar to prosecution” is “significant in that it constitute[s] a basis for minimizing [the accused’s | 2 | 2 |
Moore v. Stategreen1 sentence2015While a plea of true. standing alone, is sufficient to support the revocation of community supervision and adjudicate guilt, Moore v. State, 605 S.W.2d 924, 926 (Tex.Crim.App. [Panel Op.] 1980), this case involves the issue of whether the trial court afforded appellant due process by revoking his community supervision at a second revocation hearing on violations that were known at the time of the first revocation hearing. . | 1 | 1 |
Matheson v. Stategreen1 sentence2015It is true that the trial court had the option at the first revocation hearing to find good cause to grant the State’s motion to amend the first motion to revoke or to grant the continuance, and to handle all of the 19 For the same reason, this case is also distinguishable from Matheson v. State. 719 S.W.2d 204, 205 (Tex. Crim. | 1 | 1 |
Rhodes v. Stategreen1 sentence2015The State argues that since appellant insisted on going forward with the first revocation proceeding with full awareness that a second motion to revoke based on the purported drug and alcohol violations was likely to be filed, he acquiesced in how the two proceedings unfolded, and he is therefore es-topped from complaining (and/or has waived the right to complain) after the fact. ”[E]s-toppel is a flexible doctrine that manifests itself in various forms that are not limited to unilateral requests.” See Rhodes v. State, 240 S.W.3d 882, 891 (Tex.Crim.App.2007). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Texas. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Torres v. State
green
2 sentences2010Torres v. State, 595 S.W.2d 537 (Tex. Crim. 2009Torres v. State , 595 S.W.2d 537 (Tex. Crim. | 3 | 2008–2010 |
Rogers v. State
green
2 sentences2015At the second revocation hearing, based on a new motion filed by the State, the trial court revoked appellant’s community supervision, adjudicated him guilty of aggravated assault, and sentenced appellant to five years in the Texas Department of Criminal Justice-Institutional Division (“TDCJ”). 2 The Thirteenth Court of Appeals reversed the trial court’s judgment, believing that this Court’s opinion in Rogers v. State, 640 S.W.2d 248 (Tex.Crim.App.1981) (op. on State’g first motion for reh’g), controlled. 1982Rogers v. State, supra, is not applicable under the facts of the instant case. | 2 | 1982–2015 |
Jenkins v. State
green
1 sentence2014Id. | 1 | 2014–2014 |
Roberts v. State
neutral
1 sentence1981He cites Burks v. United States, 437 U.S. 1 , 98 S.Ct. 2141 , 57 L.Ed.2d 1 (1978); Greene v. Massey, 437 U.S. 19 , 98 S.Ct. 2151 , 57 L.Ed.2d 15 (1978); Ford v. State, supra. See also Roberts v. State, 571 S.W.2d 10 (Tex.Cr.App.1978). | 1 | 1981–1981 |
Burks v. United States
green
2 sentences1981He cites Burks v. United States, 437 U.S. 1 , 98 S.Ct. 2141 , 57 L.Ed.2d 1 (1978); Greene v. Massey, 437 U.S. 19 , 98 S.Ct. 2151 , 57 L.Ed.2d 15 (1978); Ford v. State, supra. See also Roberts v. State, 571 S.W.2d 10 (Tex.Cr.App.1978). 1981He cites Burks v. United States, 437 U.S. 1 , 98 S.Ct. 2141 , 57 L.Ed.2d 1 (1978); Greene v. Massey, 437 U.S. 19 , 98 S.Ct. 2151 , 57 L.Ed.2d 15 (1978); Ford v. State, supra. See also Roberts v. State, 571 S.W.2d 10 (Tex.Cr.App.1978). | 1 | 1981–1981 |
Greene v. Massey
green
2 sentences1981He cites Burks v. United States, 437 U.S. 1 , 98 S.Ct. 2141 , 57 L.Ed.2d 1 (1978); Greene v. Massey, 437 U.S. 19 , 98 S.Ct. 2151 , 57 L.Ed.2d 15 (1978); Ford v. State, supra. See also Roberts v. State, 571 S.W.2d 10 (Tex.Cr.App.1978). 1981He cites Burks v. United States, 437 U.S. 1 , 98 S.Ct. 2141 , 57 L.Ed.2d 1 (1978); Greene v. Massey, 437 U.S. 19 , 98 S.Ct. 2151 , 57 L.Ed.2d 15 (1978); Ford v. State, supra. See also Roberts v. State, 571 S.W.2d 10 (Tex.Cr.App.1978). | 1 | 1981–1981 |
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.