8 Texas opinions name it 3 courts 2011–2026 7 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 |
|---|---|---|
Reeves, Gary Patrickgreen1 sentence2026When, as here, the defendant objects 15 during the proceedings below, we must determine whether the record establishes that the error caused him “some harm.” See Reeves v. State, 420 S.W.3d 812, 816 (Tex. Crim. | 1 | 1 |
Burger v. Kempgreen1 sentence2026See Burger v. Kemp, 483 U.S. 776, 790 (1987) (attorney was not ineffective when he was “aware of some, but not all of [petitioner’s] family history prior to . . . trial” and made “the reasonable decision that his client’s interest would not be served by presenting this type of evidence”); Hocko v. State, 590 S.W.3d 680, 696 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2019, pet. ref’d) (“[A]n attorney’s decision not to present particular witnesses at the punishment stage may be strategically sound if based on a determination that the testimony of the witnesses may harm the defendant.”); Lampkin, 470 S.W.3d | 1 | 1 |
Esaw Lampkin v. Stategreen1 sentence2026See Burger v. Kemp, 483 U.S. 776, 790 (1987) (attorney was not ineffective when he was “aware of some, but not all of [petitioner’s] family history prior to . . . trial” and made “the reasonable decision that his client’s interest would not be served by presenting this type of evidence”); Hocko v. State, 590 S.W.3d 680, 696 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2019, pet. ref’d) (“[A]n attorney’s decision not to present particular witnesses at the punishment stage may be strategically sound if based on a determination that the testimony of the witnesses may harm the defendant.”); Lampkin, 470 S.W.3d | 1 | 1 |
Faretta v. Californiagreen1 sentence2025App. 2008) (explaining that the Sixth Amendment right to counsel includes the reciprocal right to self- representation; once the right is clearly and unequivocally asserted, the trial court must inform the defendant about the dangers and disadvantages of self- representation so that the record establishes that the waiver of counsel is intelligently and voluntarily made); see also Faretta, 422 U.S. at 818–19. | 1 | 1 |
Vickery v. Vickerygreen1 sentence2024Vickery v. Vickery, 999 S.W.2d 342, 365 (Tex. 1999). | 1 | 1 |
Nix v. Stategreen1 sentence2024See Nix v. State, 65 S.W.3d 664, 667 (Tex. Crim. | 1 | 1 |
Coble v. Stategreen1 sentence2022See Coble, 330 S.W.3d at 292 . | 1 | 1 |
Thompson v. Stategreen1 sentence2011See Thompson, 9 S.W.3d at 814 . | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Texas. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Hollander, Joe Shawn
green
1 sentence2025“Neither party bears a burden of production or persuasion with respect to [the] harm analysis, the question being simply what the record demonstrates.” Hollander v. State, 414 S.W.3d 746 , 749–50 (Tex. Crim. | 1 | 2025–2025 |
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.