7 Texas opinions name it 2 courts 1984–2016 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 |
|---|---|---|
Garfias, Christophergreen2 sentences2016See Garfias v, State, 424 S.W.3d 54, 58-59 (Tex.Crim.App.2014). 2016See Garfias v, State, 424 S.W.3d 54, 58-59 (Tex.Crim.App.2014). | 2 | 2 |
Bigon v. Stategreen2 sentences2012Bigon, 252 S.W.3d at 370 (citing Parrish v. State, 869 S.W.2d 352, 354 (Tex.Crim.App.1994)). 2012See id. at 276-77 (quoting Bigon, 252 S.W.3d at 370 ) (noting that Texas applies cognate-pleadings approach to Blockburger analysis). | 2 | 2 |
Blockburger v. United Statesgreen2 sentences1984The test to be applied is that of Blockburger v. United States, 284 U.S. 299 , 52 S.Ct. 180 , 76 L.Ed. 306 (1932): “(T)he applicable rule is that where the same act or transaction constitutes a violation of two distinct statutory provisions the test to be applied to determine whether there are two offenses or only one, is whether each provision requires proof of a fact which the other does not.” Unfortunately, the Bloekburger rule has no applicability to the double jeopardy issue raised in this case. 1 Appellant’s intoxicated driving, which by mistake or accident resulted in the deaths of two 1984The test to be applied is that of Blockburger v. United States, 284 U.S. 299 , 52 S.Ct. 180 , 76 L.Ed. 306 (1932): “(T)he applicable rule is that where the same act or transaction constitutes a violation of two distinct statutory provisions the test to be applied to determine whether there are two offenses or only one, is whether each provision requires proof of a fact which the other does not.” Unfortunately, the Bloekburger rule has no applicability to the double jeopardy issue raised in this case. 1 Appellant’s intoxicated driving, which by mistake or accident resulted in the deaths of two | 1 | 2 |
Zuliani v. Stategreen1 sentence2012See Zuliani, 353 S.W.3d at 872 . | 1 | 1 |
Littrell v. Stategreen2 sentences2012See id. at 276-77 (quoting Bigon, 252 S.W.3d at 370 ) (noting that Texas applies cognate-pleadings approach to Blockburger analysis). 2012See id. at 276-77 (quoting Bigon, 252 S.W.3d at 370 ) (noting that Texas applies cognate-pleadings approach to Blockburger analysis). | 1 | 1 |
Parrish v. Stategreen1 sentence2012Bigon, 252 S.W.3d at 370 (citing Parrish v. State, 869 S.W.2d 352, 354 (Tex.Crim.App.1994)). | 1 | 1 |
United States v. Luis A. Colon-Osoriogreen2 sentences2009Thus, the question is not whether this violation of § 2119 also constituted a violation of § 924(c), but whether all violations of the former constitute violations of the latter.”) (footnotes omitted); United States v. Kimbrew, 406 F.3d 1149, 1151 (9th Cir.2005) (noting that "Lt]he Bloekburger test focuses on the statutoiy elements of each offense, not on the actual evidence presented at trial”); United States v. Fornia-Castillo, 408 F.3d 52, 70 (1st Cir.2005) (holding that the Bloekburger test focuses on statutoiy elements of each offense); United States v. Moore, 43 F.3d 568, 571 (11th Cir.1 2009Thus, the question is not whether this violation of § 2119 also constituted a violation of § 924(c), but whether all violations of the former constitute violations of the latter.”) (footnotes omitted); United States v. Kimbrew, 406 F.3d 1149, 1151 (9th Cir.2005) (noting that "Lt]he Bloekburger test focuses on the statutoiy elements of each offense, not on the actual evidence presented at trial”); United States v. Fornia-Castillo, 408 F.3d 52, 70 (1st Cir.2005) (holding that the Bloekburger test focuses on statutoiy elements of each offense); United States v. Moore, 43 F.3d 568, 571 (11th Cir.1 | 1 | 1 |
United States v. Norman J. Moore Rodney Hewlettgreen2 sentences2009Thus, the question is not whether this violation of § 2119 also constituted a violation of § 924(c), but whether all violations of the former constitute violations of the latter.”) (footnotes omitted); United States v. Kimbrew, 406 F.3d 1149, 1151 (9th Cir.2005) (noting that "Lt]he Bloekburger test focuses on the statutoiy elements of each offense, not on the actual evidence presented at trial”); United States v. Fornia-Castillo, 408 F.3d 52, 70 (1st Cir.2005) (holding that the Bloekburger test focuses on statutoiy elements of each offense); United States v. Moore, 43 F.3d 568, 571 (11th Cir.1 2009Thus, the question is not whether this violation of § 2119 also constituted a violation of § 924(c), but whether all violations of the former constitute violations of the latter.”) (footnotes omitted); United States v. Kimbrew, 406 F.3d 1149, 1151 (9th Cir.2005) (noting that "Lt]he Bloekburger test focuses on the statutoiy elements of each offense, not on the actual evidence presented at trial”); United States v. Fornia-Castillo, 408 F.3d 52, 70 (1st Cir.2005) (holding that the Bloekburger test focuses on statutoiy elements of each offense); United States v. Moore, 43 F.3d 568, 571 (11th Cir.1 | 1 | 1 |
United States v. Fornia-Castillogreen2 sentences2009Thus, the question is not whether this violation of § 2119 also constituted a violation of § 924(c), but whether all violations of the former constitute violations of the latter.”) (footnotes omitted); United States v. Kimbrew, 406 F.3d 1149, 1151 (9th Cir.2005) (noting that "Lt]he Bloekburger test focuses on the statutoiy elements of each offense, not on the actual evidence presented at trial”); United States v. Fornia-Castillo, 408 F.3d 52, 70 (1st Cir.2005) (holding that the Bloekburger test focuses on statutoiy elements of each offense); United States v. Moore, 43 F.3d 568, 571 (11th Cir.1 2009Thus, the question is not whether this violation of § 2119 also constituted a violation of § 924(c), but whether all violations of the former constitute violations of the latter.”) (footnotes omitted); United States v. Kimbrew, 406 F.3d 1149, 1151 (9th Cir.2005) (noting that "Lt]he Bloekburger test focuses on the statutoiy elements of each offense, not on the actual evidence presented at trial”); United States v. Fornia-Castillo, 408 F.3d 52, 70 (1st Cir.2005) (holding that the Bloekburger test focuses on statutoiy elements of each offense); United States v. Moore, 43 F.3d 568, 571 (11th Cir.1 | 1 | 1 |
State v. Guzmangreen2 sentences2009See, e.g., Ephraim v. State, 237 S.W.3d 438, 441 (Tex.App.-Texarkana 2007, pet. ref’d) (defendant's conviction for driving at an unsafe speed did not bar, on double jeopardy grounds, successive prosecution for intoxication assault); State v. Guzman, 182 S.W.3d 389, 391-93 (Tex.App.-Austin 2005, no pet.) (prosecution for child endangerment based on indictment allegation that defendant drove while intoxicated with child under age 15 as a passenger was not barred by double jeopardy after defendant pleaded guilty to driving while intoxicated (DWI); under Bloekburger test, allegation of "driving wh 2009See, e.g., Ephraim v. State, 237 S.W.3d 438, 441 (Tex.App.-Texarkana 2007, pet. ref’d) (defendant's conviction for driving at an unsafe speed did not bar, on double jeopardy grounds, successive prosecution for intoxication assault); State v. Guzman, 182 S.W.3d 389, 391-93 (Tex.App.-Austin 2005, no pet.) (prosecution for child endangerment based on indictment allegation that defendant drove while intoxicated with child under age 15 as a passenger was not barred by double jeopardy after defendant pleaded guilty to driving while intoxicated (DWI); under Bloekburger test, allegation of "driving wh | 1 | 1 |
Ex Parte McWilliamsgreen1 sentence2009See Ex parte McWilliams, 634 S.W.2d 815, 822 (Tex.Crim.App.1982) (op. on reh'g). | 1 | 1 |
United States v. Rodney Robert Kimbrew, A.K.A. Carlton Cochrangreen2 sentences2009Thus, the question is not whether this violation of § 2119 also constituted a violation of § 924(c), but whether all violations of the former constitute violations of the latter.”) (footnotes omitted); United States v. Kimbrew, 406 F.3d 1149, 1151 (9th Cir.2005) (noting that "Lt]he Bloekburger test focuses on the statutoiy elements of each offense, not on the actual evidence presented at trial”); United States v. Fornia-Castillo, 408 F.3d 52, 70 (1st Cir.2005) (holding that the Bloekburger test focuses on statutoiy elements of each offense); United States v. Moore, 43 F.3d 568, 571 (11th Cir.1 2009Thus, the question is not whether this violation of § 2119 also constituted a violation of § 924(c), but whether all violations of the former constitute violations of the latter.”) (footnotes omitted); United States v. Kimbrew, 406 F.3d 1149, 1151 (9th Cir.2005) (noting that "Lt]he Bloekburger test focuses on the statutoiy elements of each offense, not on the actual evidence presented at trial”); United States v. Fornia-Castillo, 408 F.3d 52, 70 (1st Cir.2005) (holding that the Bloekburger test focuses on statutoiy elements of each offense); United States v. Moore, 43 F.3d 568, 571 (11th Cir.1 | 1 | 1 |
Ephraim v. Stategreen2 sentences2009See, e.g., Ephraim v. State, 237 S.W.3d 438, 441 (Tex.App.-Texarkana 2007, pet. ref’d) (defendant's conviction for driving at an unsafe speed did not bar, on double jeopardy grounds, successive prosecution for intoxication assault); State v. Guzman, 182 S.W.3d 389, 391-93 (Tex.App.-Austin 2005, no pet.) (prosecution for child endangerment based on indictment allegation that defendant drove while intoxicated with child under age 15 as a passenger was not barred by double jeopardy after defendant pleaded guilty to driving while intoxicated (DWI); under Bloekburger test, allegation of "driving wh 2009See, e.g., Ephraim v. State, 237 S.W.3d 438, 441 (Tex.App.-Texarkana 2007, pet. ref’d) (defendant's conviction for driving at an unsafe speed did not bar, on double jeopardy grounds, successive prosecution for intoxication assault); State v. Guzman, 182 S.W.3d 389, 391-93 (Tex.App.-Austin 2005, no pet.) (prosecution for child endangerment based on indictment allegation that defendant drove while intoxicated with child under age 15 as a passenger was not barred by double jeopardy after defendant pleaded guilty to driving while intoxicated (DWI); under Bloekburger test, allegation of "driving wh | 1 | 1 |
Tharp v. Stategreen2 sentences2006See Ex parte Tharp, 912 S.W.2d 887, 889 (Tex.App.-Fort Worth 1995), aff'd, 935 S.W.2d 157 (Tex.Crim.App.1996) (“Because the statutes describe the ‘same offense’ under the Blockburger test, if the driver’s license suspension ... was punishment, then a subsequent prosecution for driving while intoxicated will be barred by double *782 jeopardy.”); see also Langs, 183 S.W.3d at 685 (“This Court adopted the Bloekburger test long ago, and we continue to apply it as the first means of analyzing a multiple-punishment double-jeopardy claim when the legislature’s intent is not clearly expressed.”); John 2006See Ex parte Tharp, 912 S.W.2d 887, 889 (Tex.App.-Fort Worth 1995), aff'd, 935 S.W.2d 157 (Tex.Crim.App.1996) (“Because the statutes describe the ‘same offense’ under the Blockburger test, if the driver’s license suspension ... was punishment, then a subsequent prosecution for driving while intoxicated will be barred by double *782 jeopardy.”); see also Langs, 183 S.W.3d at 685 (“This Court adopted the Bloekburger test long ago, and we continue to apply it as the first means of analyzing a multiple-punishment double-jeopardy claim when the legislature’s intent is not clearly expressed.”); John | 1 | 1 |
Johnson v. Stategreen2 sentences2006See Ex parte Tharp, 912 S.W.2d 887, 889 (Tex.App.-Fort Worth 1995), aff'd, 935 S.W.2d 157 (Tex.Crim.App.1996) (“Because the statutes describe the ‘same offense’ under the Blockburger test, if the driver’s license suspension ... was punishment, then a subsequent prosecution for driving while intoxicated will be barred by double *782 jeopardy.”); see also Langs, 183 S.W.3d at 685 (“This Court adopted the Bloekburger test long ago, and we continue to apply it as the first means of analyzing a multiple-punishment double-jeopardy claim when the legislature’s intent is not clearly expressed.”); John 2006See Ex parte Tharp, 912 S.W.2d 887, 889 (Tex.App.-Fort Worth 1995), aff'd, 935 S.W.2d 157 (Tex.Crim.App.1996) (“Because the statutes describe the ‘same offense’ under the Blockburger test, if the driver’s license suspension ... was punishment, then a subsequent prosecution for driving while intoxicated will be barred by double *782 jeopardy.”); see also Langs, 183 S.W.3d at 685 (“This Court adopted the Bloekburger test long ago, and we continue to apply it as the first means of analyzing a multiple-punishment double-jeopardy claim when the legislature’s intent is not clearly expressed.”); John | 1 | 1 |
Langs v. Stategreen2 sentences2006See Ex parte Tharp, 912 S.W.2d 887, 889 (Tex.App.-Fort Worth 1995), aff'd, 935 S.W.2d 157 (Tex.Crim.App.1996) (“Because the statutes describe the ‘same offense’ under the Blockburger test, if the driver’s license suspension ... was punishment, then a subsequent prosecution for driving while intoxicated will be barred by double *782 jeopardy.”); see also Langs, 183 S.W.3d at 685 (“This Court adopted the Bloekburger test long ago, and we continue to apply it as the first means of analyzing a multiple-punishment double-jeopardy claim when the legislature’s intent is not clearly expressed.”); John 2006See Ex parte Tharp, 912 S.W.2d 887, 889 (Tex.App.-Fort Worth 1995), aff'd, 935 S.W.2d 157 (Tex.Crim.App.1996) (“Because the statutes describe the ‘same offense’ under the Blockburger test, if the driver’s license suspension ... was punishment, then a subsequent prosecution for driving while intoxicated will be barred by double *782 jeopardy.”); see also Langs, 183 S.W.3d at 685 (“This Court adopted the Bloekburger test long ago, and we continue to apply it as the first means of analyzing a multiple-punishment double-jeopardy claim when the legislature’s intent is not clearly expressed.”); John | 1 | 1 |
Ex Parte Tharpgreen2 sentences2006See Ex parte Tharp, 912 S.W.2d 887, 889 (Tex.App.-Fort Worth 1995), aff'd, 935 S.W.2d 157 (Tex.Crim.App.1996) (“Because the statutes describe the ‘same offense’ under the Blockburger test, if the driver’s license suspension ... was punishment, then a subsequent prosecution for driving while intoxicated will be barred by double *782 jeopardy.”); see also Langs, 183 S.W.3d at 685 (“This Court adopted the Bloekburger test long ago, and we continue to apply it as the first means of analyzing a multiple-punishment double-jeopardy claim when the legislature’s intent is not clearly expressed.”); John 2006See Ex parte Tharp, 912 S.W.2d 887, 889 (Tex.App.-Fort Worth 1995), aff'd, 935 S.W.2d 157 (Tex.Crim.App.1996) (“Because the statutes describe the ‘same offense’ under the Blockburger test, if the driver’s license suspension ... was punishment, then a subsequent prosecution for driving while intoxicated will be barred by double *782 jeopardy.”); see also Langs, 183 S.W.3d at 685 (“This Court adopted the Bloekburger test long ago, and we continue to apply it as the first means of analyzing a multiple-punishment double-jeopardy claim when the legislature’s intent is not clearly expressed.”); John | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Texas. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Gonzales v. State
green
2 sentences2012Therefore, “an accused may be punished for two offenses even though they would be regarded as the same under a Bloekburger analysis if the Legislature has otherwise made manifest its intention that he should be.” Id. 2012Therefore, “an accused may be punished for two offenses even though they would be regarded as the same under a Bloekburger analysis if the Legislature has otherwise made manifest its intention that he should be.” Id. | 1 | 2012–2012 |
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.