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.
8 Texas opinions name it 2 courts 1993–2023 2 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 |
|---|---|---|
Bell v. Stategreen2 sentences2010See Monge v. California, 524 U.S. 721, 729-30 , 118 S.Ct. 2246 , 141 L.Ed.2d 615 (1998) (double-jeopardy clause "neither prevents the prosecution from seeking review of a sentence nor restricts the length of a sentence imposed upon retrial after a defendant's successful appeal"); Bell v. State, 994 S.W.2d 173, 175 (Tex.Crim.App.1999) (overruling Cooper , following Monge , and holding that double jeopardy does not bar the State from a second opportunity to present its proof of a prior conviction for the purpose of seeking a cumulated sentence). [35] Ex parte Santana, 227 S.W.3d 700, 704-05 (Tex 2010See Monge v. California, 524 U.S. 721, 729-30 , 118 S.Ct. 2246 , 141 L.Ed.2d 615 (1998) (double-jeopardy clause "neither prevents the prosecution from seeking review of a sentence nor restricts the length of a sentence imposed upon retrial after a defendant’s successful appeal”); Bell v. State, 994 S.W.2d 173, 175 (Tex.Crim.App.1999) (overruling Cooper , following Monge , and holding that double jeopardy does not bar the State from a second opportunity to present its proof of a prior conviction for the purpose of seeking a cumulated sentence). .Ex parte Santana, 227 S.W.3d 700, 704-05 (Tex.Cri | 3 | 3 |
Monge v. Californiagreen2 sentences2010See Monge v. California, 524 U.S. 721, 729-30 , 118 S.Ct. 2246 , 141 L.Ed.2d 615 (1998) (double-jeopardy clause "neither prevents the prosecution from seeking review of a sentence nor restricts the length of a sentence imposed upon retrial after a defendant’s successful appeal”); Bell v. State, 994 S.W.2d 173, 175 (Tex.Crim.App.1999) (overruling Cooper , following Monge , and holding that double jeopardy does not bar the State from a second opportunity to present its proof of a prior conviction for the purpose of seeking a cumulated sentence). .Ex parte Santana, 227 S.W.3d 700, 704-05 (Tex.Cri 2010See Monge v. California, 524 U.S. 721, 729-30 , 118 S.Ct. 2246 , 141 L.Ed.2d 615 (1998) (double-jeopardy clause "neither prevents the prosecution from seeking review of a sentence nor restricts the length of a sentence imposed upon retrial after a defendant’s successful appeal”); Bell v. State, 994 S.W.2d 173, 175 (Tex.Crim.App.1999) (overruling Cooper , following Monge , and holding that double jeopardy does not bar the State from a second opportunity to present its proof of a prior conviction for the purpose of seeking a cumulated sentence). .Ex parte Santana, 227 S.W.3d 700, 704-05 (Tex.Cri | 3 | 3 |
Sanabria v. United Statesgreen2 sentences2007This second attempt at sentencing violated Appellant’s rights under the Double Jeopardy Clause. [Footnote 9:] See Arizona v. Rumsey, 467 U.S. 203, 211 , 104 S.Ct. 2305 , 81 L.Ed.2d 164 (1984) (a trial court’s imposition of a life sentence, based on its incorrect finding that, as a matter of law, robbery did not amount to an aggravating circumstance warranting the death penalty, barred the imposition of the greater sentence of death upon resentencing); Sanabria v. United States, 437 U.S. 54, 64 , 98 S.Ct. 2170 , 57 L.Ed.2d 43 (1978) (even mistaken or “egregiously erroneous” legal rulings that l 2007This second attempt at sentencing violated Appellant’s rights under the Double Jeopardy Clause. [Footnote 9:] See Arizona v. Rumsey, 467 U.S. 203, 211 , 104 S.Ct. 2305 , 81 L.Ed.2d 164 (1984) (a trial court’s imposition of a life sentence, based on its incorrect finding that, as a matter of law, robbery did not amount to an aggravating circumstance warranting the death penalty, barred the imposition of the greater sentence of death upon resentencing); Sanabria v. United States, 437 U.S. 54, 64 , 98 S.Ct. 2170 , 57 L.Ed.2d 43 (1978) (even mistaken or “egregiously erroneous” legal rulings that l | 1 | 2 |
Arizona v. Rumseygreen2 sentences2007This second attempt at sentencing violated Appellant’s rights under the Double Jeopardy Clause. [Footnote 9:] See Arizona v. Rumsey, 467 U.S. 203, 211 , 104 S.Ct. 2305 , 81 L.Ed.2d 164 (1984) (a trial court’s imposition of a life sentence, based on its incorrect finding that, as a matter of law, robbery did not amount to an aggravating circumstance warranting the death penalty, barred the imposition of the greater sentence of death upon resentencing); Sanabria v. United States, 437 U.S. 54, 64 , 98 S.Ct. 2170 , 57 L.Ed.2d 43 (1978) (even mistaken or “egregiously erroneous” legal rulings that l 2007This second attempt at sentencing violated Appellant’s rights under the Double Jeopardy Clause. [Footnote 9:] See Arizona v. Rumsey, 467 U.S. 203, 211 , 104 S.Ct. 2305 , 81 L.Ed.2d 164 (1984) (a trial court’s imposition of a life sentence, based on its incorrect finding that, as a matter of law, robbery did not amount to an aggravating circumstance warranting the death penalty, barred the imposition of the greater sentence of death upon resentencing); Sanabria v. United States, 437 U.S. 54, 64 , 98 S.Ct. 2170 , 57 L.Ed.2d 43 (1978) (even mistaken or “egregiously erroneous” legal rulings that l | 1 | 2 |
Schaetzle v. Cockrellgreen1 sentence2010See Monge v. California, 524 U.S. 721, 729-30 , 118 S.Ct. 2246 , 141 L.Ed.2d 615 (1998) (double-jeopardy clause "neither prevents the prosecution from seeking review of a sentence nor restricts the length of a sentence imposed upon retrial after a defendant's successful appeal"); Bell v. State, 994 S.W.2d 173, 175 (Tex.Crim.App.1999) (overruling Cooper , following Monge , and holding that double jeopardy does not bar the State from a second opportunity to present its proof of a prior conviction for the purpose of seeking a cumulated sentence). [35] Ex parte Santana, 227 S.W.3d 700, 704-05 (Tex | 1 | 1 |
Ex Parte Carriogreen1 sentence2010It is simply not plausible to believe that the jury convicted applicant of murder because of the quality or quantity of the character witnesses. [31] Strickland, 466 U.S. at 687 , 104 S.Ct. 2052 ; Tong v. State, 25 S.W.3d at 707, 712 (Tex.Crim.App.2000); Scheanette v. State, 144 S.W.3d 503, 510 (Tex.Crim.App.2004). [32] Presumably this was an enhancement paragraph alleging the 1972 heroin conviction. [33] Ex parte Carrio, 992 S.W.2d 486, 488 (Tex. Crim.App.1999). [34] Double-jeopardy principles do not bar the State from proving applicant's status as an habitual offender at a second sentencing | 1 | 1 |
Scheanette v. Stategreen1 sentence2010It is simply not plausible to believe that the jury convicted applicant of murder because of the quality or quantity of the character witnesses. [31] Strickland, 466 U.S. at 687 , 104 S.Ct. 2052 ; Tong v. State, 25 S.W.3d at 707, 712 (Tex.Crim.App.2000); Scheanette v. State, 144 S.W.3d 503, 510 (Tex.Crim.App.2004). [32] Presumably this was an enhancement paragraph alleging the 1972 heroin conviction. [33] Ex parte Carrio, 992 S.W.2d 486, 488 (Tex. Crim.App.1999). [34] Double-jeopardy principles do not bar the State from proving applicant's status as an habitual offender at a second sentencing | 1 | 1 |
David A. Gray v. James Greergreen1 sentence2010See Monge v. California, 524 U.S. 721, 729-30 , 118 S.Ct. 2246 , 141 L.Ed.2d 615 (1998) (double-jeopardy clause "neither prevents the prosecution from seeking review of a sentence nor restricts the length of a sentence imposed upon retrial after a defendant's successful appeal"); Bell v. State, 994 S.W.2d 173, 175 (Tex.Crim.App.1999) (overruling Cooper , following Monge , and holding that double jeopardy does not bar the State from a second opportunity to present its proof of a prior conviction for the purpose of seeking a cumulated sentence). [35] Ex parte Santana, 227 S.W.3d 700, 704-05 (Tex | 1 | 1 |
Smith v. Robbinsgreen2 sentences2010See Monge v. California, 524 U.S. 721, 729-30 , 118 S.Ct. 2246 , 141 L.Ed.2d 615 (1998) (double-jeopardy clause "neither prevents the prosecution from seeking review of a sentence nor restricts the length of a sentence imposed upon retrial after a defendant’s successful appeal”); Bell v. State, 994 S.W.2d 173, 175 (Tex.Crim.App.1999) (overruling Cooper , following Monge , and holding that double jeopardy does not bar the State from a second opportunity to present its proof of a prior conviction for the purpose of seeking a cumulated sentence). .Ex parte Santana, 227 S.W.3d 700, 704-05 (Tex.Cri 2010See Monge v. California, 524 U.S. 721, 729-30 , 118 S.Ct. 2246 , 141 L.Ed.2d 615 (1998) (double-jeopardy clause "neither prevents the prosecution from seeking review of a sentence nor restricts the length of a sentence imposed upon retrial after a defendant’s successful appeal”); Bell v. State, 994 S.W.2d 173, 175 (Tex.Crim.App.1999) (overruling Cooper , following Monge , and holding that double jeopardy does not bar the State from a second opportunity to present its proof of a prior conviction for the purpose of seeking a cumulated sentence). .Ex parte Santana, 227 S.W.3d 700, 704-05 (Tex.Cri | 1 | 1 |
Ex Parte Santanagreen2 sentences2010See Monge v. California, 524 U.S. 721, 729-30 , 118 S.Ct. 2246 , 141 L.Ed.2d 615 (1998) (double-jeopardy clause "neither prevents the prosecution from seeking review of a sentence nor restricts the length of a sentence imposed upon retrial after a defendant's successful appeal"); Bell v. State, 994 S.W.2d 173, 175 (Tex.Crim.App.1999) (overruling Cooper , following Monge , and holding that double jeopardy does not bar the State from a second opportunity to present its proof of a prior conviction for the purpose of seeking a cumulated sentence). [35] Ex parte Santana, 227 S.W.3d 700, 704-05 (Tex 2010See Monge v. California, 524 U.S. 721, 729-30 , 118 S.Ct. 2246 , 141 L.Ed.2d 615 (1998) (double-jeopardy clause "neither prevents the prosecution from seeking review of a sentence nor restricts the length of a sentence imposed upon retrial after a defendant’s successful appeal”); Bell v. State, 994 S.W.2d 173, 175 (Tex.Crim.App.1999) (overruling Cooper , following Monge , and holding that double jeopardy does not bar the State from a second opportunity to present its proof of a prior conviction for the purpose of seeking a cumulated sentence). .Ex parte Santana, 227 S.W.3d 700, 704-05 (Tex.Cri | 1 | 1 |
Patterson v. Stategreen1 sentence2010See Monge v. California, 524 U.S. 721, 729-30 , 118 S.Ct. 2246 , 141 L.Ed.2d 615 (1998) (double-jeopardy clause "neither prevents the prosecution from seeking review of a sentence nor restricts the length of a sentence imposed upon retrial after a defendant's successful appeal"); Bell v. State, 994 S.W.2d 173, 175 (Tex.Crim.App.1999) (overruling Cooper , following Monge , and holding that double jeopardy does not bar the State from a second opportunity to present its proof of a prior conviction for the purpose of seeking a cumulated sentence). [35] Ex parte Santana, 227 S.W.3d 700, 704-05 (Tex | 1 | 1 |
Tong v. Stategreen1 sentence2010It is simply not plausible to believe that the jury convicted applicant of murder because of the quality or quantity of the character witnesses. [31] Strickland, 466 U.S. at 687 , 104 S.Ct. 2052 ; Tong v. State, 25 S.W.3d at 707, 712 (Tex.Crim.App.2000); Scheanette v. State, 144 S.W.3d 503, 510 (Tex.Crim.App.2004). [32] Presumably this was an enhancement paragraph alleging the 1972 heroin conviction. [33] Ex parte Carrio, 992 S.W.2d 486, 488 (Tex. Crim.App.1999). [34] Double-jeopardy principles do not bar the State from proving applicant's status as an habitual offender at a second sentencing | 1 | 1 |
Moore v. Stategreen1 sentence2010See Monge v. California, 524 U.S. 721, 729-30 , 118 S.Ct. 2246 , 141 L.Ed.2d 615 (1998) (double-jeopardy clause "neither prevents the prosecution from seeking review of a sentence nor restricts the length of a sentence imposed upon retrial after a defendant's successful appeal"); Bell v. State, 994 S.W.2d 173, 175 (Tex.Crim.App.1999) (overruling Cooper , following Monge , and holding that double jeopardy does not bar the State from a second opportunity to present its proof of a prior conviction for the purpose of seeking a cumulated sentence). [35] Ex parte Santana, 227 S.W.3d 700, 704-05 (Tex | 1 | 1 |
Hickman v. Stategreen1 sentence2010See Monge v. California, 524 U.S. 721, 729-30 , 118 S.Ct. 2246 , 141 L.Ed.2d 615 (1998) (double-jeopardy clause "neither prevents the prosecution from seeking review of a sentence nor restricts the length of a sentence imposed upon retrial after a defendant's successful appeal"); Bell v. State, 994 S.W.2d 173, 175 (Tex.Crim.App.1999) (overruling Cooper , following Monge , and holding that double jeopardy does not bar the State from a second opportunity to present its proof of a prior conviction for the purpose of seeking a cumulated sentence). [35] Ex parte Santana, 227 S.W.3d 700, 704-05 (Tex | 1 | 1 |
Jordan v. Stategreen2 sentences2010See Monge v. California, 524 U.S. 721, 729-30 , 118 S.Ct. 2246 , 141 L.Ed.2d 615 (1998) (double-jeopardy clause "neither prevents the prosecution from seeking review of a sentence nor restricts the length of a sentence imposed upon retrial after a defendant's successful appeal"); Bell v. State, 994 S.W.2d 173, 175 (Tex.Crim.App.1999) (overruling Cooper , following Monge , and holding that double jeopardy does not bar the State from a second opportunity to present its proof of a prior conviction for the purpose of seeking a cumulated sentence). [35] Ex parte Santana, 227 S.W.3d 700, 704-05 (Tex 2010See Monge v. California, 524 U.S. 721, 729-30 , 118 S.Ct. 2246 , 141 L.Ed.2d 615 (1998) (double-jeopardy clause "neither prevents the prosecution from seeking review of a sentence nor restricts the length of a sentence imposed upon retrial after a defendant's successful appeal"); Bell v. State, 994 S.W.2d 173, 175 (Tex.Crim.App.1999) (overruling Cooper , following Monge , and holding that double jeopardy does not bar the State from a second opportunity to present its proof of a prior conviction for the purpose of seeking a cumulated sentence). [35] Ex parte Santana, 227 S.W.3d 700, 704-05 (Tex | 1 | 1 |
Williams v. Stategreen1 sentence2010See Monge v. California, 524 U.S. 721, 729-30 , 118 S.Ct. 2246 , 141 L.Ed.2d 615 (1998) (double-jeopardy clause "neither prevents the prosecution from seeking review of a sentence nor restricts the length of a sentence imposed upon retrial after a defendant's successful appeal"); Bell v. State, 994 S.W.2d 173, 175 (Tex.Crim.App.1999) (overruling Cooper , following Monge , and holding that double jeopardy does not bar the State from a second opportunity to present its proof of a prior conviction for the purpose of seeking a cumulated sentence). [35] Ex parte Santana, 227 S.W.3d 700, 704-05 (Tex | 1 | 1 |
Stallings v. United Statesgreen1 sentence2010See Monge v. California, 524 U.S. 721, 729-30 , 118 S.Ct. 2246 , 141 L.Ed.2d 615 (1998) (double-jeopardy clause "neither prevents the prosecution from seeking review of a sentence nor restricts the length of a sentence imposed upon retrial after a defendant's successful appeal"); Bell v. State, 994 S.W.2d 173, 175 (Tex.Crim.App.1999) (overruling Cooper , following Monge , and holding that double jeopardy does not bar the State from a second opportunity to present its proof of a prior conviction for the purpose of seeking a cumulated sentence). [35] Ex parte Santana, 227 S.W.3d 700, 704-05 (Tex | 1 | 1 |
Tomlin v. Stategreen1 sentence2010See Monge v. California, 524 U.S. 721, 729-30 , 118 S.Ct. 2246 , 141 L.Ed.2d 615 (1998) (double-jeopardy clause "neither prevents the prosecution from seeking review of a sentence nor restricts the length of a sentence imposed upon retrial after a defendant's successful appeal"); Bell v. State, 994 S.W.2d 173, 175 (Tex.Crim.App.1999) (overruling Cooper , following Monge , and holding that double jeopardy does not bar the State from a second opportunity to present its proof of a prior conviction for the purpose of seeking a cumulated sentence). [35] Ex parte Santana, 227 S.W.3d 700, 704-05 (Tex | 1 | 1 |
Ex Parte Daiglegreen1 sentence2010See Monge v. California, 524 U.S. 721, 729-30 , 118 S.Ct. 2246 , 141 L.Ed.2d 615 (1998) (double-jeopardy clause "neither prevents the prosecution from seeking review of a sentence nor restricts the length of a sentence imposed upon retrial after a defendant's successful appeal"); Bell v. State, 994 S.W.2d 173, 175 (Tex.Crim.App.1999) (overruling Cooper , following Monge , and holding that double jeopardy does not bar the State from a second opportunity to present its proof of a prior conviction for the purpose of seeking a cumulated sentence). [35] Ex parte Santana, 227 S.W.3d 700, 704-05 (Tex | 1 | 1 |
Valdez v. Stategreen1 sentence2010See Monge v. California, 524 U.S. 721, 729-30 , 118 S.Ct. 2246 , 141 L.Ed.2d 615 (1998) (double-jeopardy clause "neither prevents the prosecution from seeking review of a sentence nor restricts the length of a sentence imposed upon retrial after a defendant's successful appeal"); Bell v. State, 994 S.W.2d 173, 175 (Tex.Crim.App.1999) (overruling Cooper , following Monge , and holding that double jeopardy does not bar the State from a second opportunity to present its proof of a prior conviction for the purpose of seeking a cumulated sentence). [35] Ex parte Santana, 227 S.W.3d 700, 704-05 (Tex | 1 | 1 |
McCrary v. Stategreen1 sentence2010See Monge v. California, 524 U.S. 721, 729-30 , 118 S.Ct. 2246 , 141 L.Ed.2d 615 (1998) (double-jeopardy clause "neither prevents the prosecution from seeking review of a sentence nor restricts the length of a sentence imposed upon retrial after a defendant's successful appeal"); Bell v. State, 994 S.W.2d 173, 175 (Tex.Crim.App.1999) (overruling Cooper , following Monge , and holding that double jeopardy does not bar the State from a second opportunity to present its proof of a prior conviction for the purpose of seeking a cumulated sentence). [35] Ex parte Santana, 227 S.W.3d 700, 704-05 (Tex | 1 | 1 |
Evitts v. Luceygreen2 sentences2010See Monge v. California, 524 U.S. 721, 729-30 , 118 S.Ct. 2246 , 141 L.Ed.2d 615 (1998) (double-jeopardy clause "neither prevents the prosecution from seeking review of a sentence nor restricts the length of a sentence imposed upon retrial after a defendant's successful appeal"); Bell v. State, 994 S.W.2d 173, 175 (Tex.Crim.App.1999) (overruling Cooper , following Monge , and holding that double jeopardy does not bar the State from a second opportunity to present its proof of a prior conviction for the purpose of seeking a cumulated sentence). [35] Ex parte Santana, 227 S.W.3d 700, 704-05 (Tex 2010See Monge v. California, 524 U.S. 721, 729-30 , 118 S.Ct. 2246 , 141 L.Ed.2d 615 (1998) (double-jeopardy clause "neither prevents the prosecution from seeking review of a sentence nor restricts the length of a sentence imposed upon retrial after a defendant's successful appeal"); Bell v. State, 994 S.W.2d 173, 175 (Tex.Crim.App.1999) (overruling Cooper , following Monge , and holding that double jeopardy does not bar the State from a second opportunity to present its proof of a prior conviction for the purpose of seeking a cumulated sentence). [35] Ex parte Santana, 227 S.W.3d 700, 704-05 (Tex | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Bingham v. Stategreen2 sentences1993But see Bingham v. State, 523 S.W.2d 948, 949 (Tex.Crim.App.1975) (presumption of vindictiveness applied where a different judge, who was aware of the proceedings incident to the first sentence, sentenced defendant on retrial); In McCullough the Supreme Court noted: Pearce itself apparently involved different judges presiding over the two trials, a fact that has lead some courts to conclude by implication that the presumption of vindictiveness applies even where different sentencing judges are involved. 1993But see Bingham v. State, 523 S.W.2d 948, 949 (Tex.Crim.App. 1975) (presumption of vindictiveness applied where a different judge, who was aware of the proceedings incident to the first sentence, sentenced defendant on retrial); In McCullough the Supreme Court noted: Pearce itself apparently involved different judges presiding over the two trials, a fact that has lead some courts to conclude by implication that the presumption of vindictiveness applies even where different sentencing judges are involved. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Smith v. State
green
1 sentence2023Id. at 344 . | 1 | 2023–2023 |
State v. Wooldridge
green
1 sentence2021Id. at 397 n.8. | 1 | 2021–2021 |
Strickland v. Washington
green
2 sentences2010It is simply not plausible to believe that the jury convicted applicant of murder because of the quality or quantity of the character witnesses. [31] Strickland, 466 U.S. at 687 , 104 S.Ct. 2052 ; Tong v. State, 25 S.W.3d at 707, 712 (Tex.Crim.App.2000); Scheanette v. State, 144 S.W.3d 503, 510 (Tex.Crim.App.2004). [32] Presumably this was an enhancement paragraph alleging the 1972 heroin conviction. [33] Ex parte Carrio, 992 S.W.2d 486, 488 (Tex. Crim.App.1999). [34] Double-jeopardy principles do not bar the State from proving applicant's status as an habitual offender at a second sentencing 2010It is simply not plausible to believe that the jury convicted applicant of murder because of the quality or quantity of the character witnesses. [31] Strickland, 466 U.S. at 687 , 104 S.Ct. 2052 ; Tong v. State, 25 S.W.3d at 707, 712 (Tex.Crim.App.2000); Scheanette v. State, 144 S.W.3d 503, 510 (Tex.Crim.App.2004). [32] Presumably this was an enhancement paragraph alleging the 1972 heroin conviction. [33] Ex parte Carrio, 992 S.W.2d 486, 488 (Tex. Crim.App.1999). [34] Double-jeopardy principles do not bar the State from proving applicant's status as an habitual offender at a second sentencing | 1 | 2010–2010 |
Patterson v. State
green
1 sentence2010See Monge v. California, 524 U.S. 721, 729-30 , 118 S.Ct. 2246 , 141 L.Ed.2d 615 (1998) (double-jeopardy clause "neither prevents the prosecution from seeking review of a sentence nor restricts the length of a sentence imposed upon retrial after a defendant's successful appeal"); Bell v. State, 994 S.W.2d 173, 175 (Tex.Crim.App.1999) (overruling Cooper , following Monge , and holding that double jeopardy does not bar the State from a second opportunity to present its proof of a prior conviction for the purpose of seeking a cumulated sentence). [35] Ex parte Santana, 227 S.W.3d 700, 704-05 (Tex | 1 | 2010–2010 |
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.
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.