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 1984–2002 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 |
|---|---|---|
Williams v. Stategreen2 sentences1995Williams v. State, 663 S.W.2d 832, 834 (Tex.Crim.App.1984) (holding Sisco standard applicable throughout article 46.02). 1990In Williams v. State, 663 S.W.2d 832 (Tex.Crim.App.1984), it was held that the Sisco standard is applicable to hearings during the trial (§ 2(b) of Article 46.02) as well as to hearings in advance of the trial (§ 2(a) of Article 46.02). | 2 | 4 |
Johnson v. Stategreen2 sentences1987Johnson, supra, and its progeny were overruled. 1987Johnson, supra, and its progeny were overruled. | 1 | 2 |
Moore v. Stategreen2 sentences1999Cf. Moore v. State, No. 72,638, slip op. at 4-6, — S.W.2d -, - -, 1999 WL 233918, at *2-3 (Tex.Crim. 1999Cf. Moore v. State, No. 72,638, slip op. at 4-6, — S.W.2d -, - -, 1999 WL 233918, at *2-3 (Tex.Crim. | 1 | 1 |
Wilson v. Stategreen2 sentences1999See Williams , 663 S.W.2d at 834 . 1999See Williams , 663 S.W.2d at 834 . | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Texas. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Alcott v. State
green
2 sentences2002As the Court of Criminal Appeals made clear in Alcott , the Sisco standard applies only when the trial court has already held a competency inquiry but has refused to impanel a jury to decide the issue, because the court found no “evidence sufficient to support a finding of incompetency.†Alcott , 51 S.W.3d at 601 ; Tex. Code Crim. Proc. 2002As the Court of Criminal Appeals made clear in Alcott , the Sisco standard applies only when the trial court has already held a competency inquiry but has refused to impanel a jury to decide the issue, because the court found no “evidence sufficient to support a finding of incompetency.†Alcott , 51 S.W.3d at 601 ; Tex. Code Crim. Proc. | 1 | 2002–2002 |
Sisco v. State
green
2 sentences1999The Sisco standard, advanced by appellant, is used when “determining after hearing ... whether ‘there is evidence to support a finding of incompetency to stand trial.’ ” Sisco, 599 S.W.2d at 613 . 1999The Sisco standard, advanced by appellant, is used when “determining after hearing ... whether ‘there is evidence to support a finding of incompetency to stand trial.’ ” Sisco, 599 S.W.2d at 613 . | 1 | 1999–1999 |
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.