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.
46 Texas opinions name it 2 courts 1981–2025 1 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 |
|---|---|---|
Kirtley v. Stategreen2 sentences2005See Kirtley v. State, 56 S.W.3d 48, 51 (Tex.Crim.App.2001); Vidaurri v. State, 49 S.W.3d 880, 885 (Tex.Crim.App. 2001); McGee v. State, 124 S.W.3d 253, 256 (Tex.App.-Fort Worth 2003, pet. ref'd); Jones v. State, 39 S.W.3d 691, 693 (Tex. App.-Corpus Christi 2001, no pet.); Amaro v. State, 970 S.W.2d 172, 173 (Tex.App.Fort Worth 1998, no pet.). 2005See Kirtley v. State, 56 S.W.3d 48, 51 (Tex.Crim.App.2001); Vidaurri v. State, 49 S.W.3d 880, 885 (Tex.Crim.App.2001); McGee v. State, 124 S.W.3d 253, 256 (Tex.App.Fort Worth 2003, pet. ref'd); Jones v. State, 39 S.W.3d 691, 693 (Tex.App.Corpus Christi 2001, no pet.); Amaro v. State, 970 S.W.2d 172, 173 (Tex.App.Fort Worth 1998, no pet.). | 5 | 5 |
Wiggins v. Smith, Wardengreen2 sentences2013See also Wiggins v. Smith , 539 U.S. 510 (2003); Williams v. Taylor , 529 U.S. 362 (2000). 2013See also Wiggins v. Smith, 539 U.S. 510 (2003); Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 362 (2000). | 4 | 4 |
Hardeman v. Stategreen2 sentences2005See Hardeman v. State , 1 S.W.3d 689, 690-91 (Tex. Crim. 2005See Hardeman v. State , 1 S.W.3d 689, 690-91 (Tex. Crim. | 4 | 4 |
Andrews v. Stategreen2 sentences2008See Andrews v. State, 159 S.W.3d 98, 102 (Tex. Crim. 2008See Andrews v. State, 159 S.W.3d 98, 102 (Tex. Crim. | 2 | 2 |
Turner v. Stategreen2 sentences2006He asserts that "the entire omission of the reading of an indictment and obtaining a plea thereto is 'structural error' not subject to a harm analysis." Appellant also cites Turner v. State , 897 S.W.2d 786, 788-89 (Tex. Crim. 2006He asserts that “the entire omission of the reading of an indictment and obtaining a plea thereto is ‘structural error’ not subject to a harm analysis.” Appellant also cites Turner v. State, 897 S.W.2d 786, 788-89 (Tex.Crim.App.1995), in which we reaffirmed the principle of prior holdings that the reading of enhancement paragraphs at the penalty stage and entering a plea are mandatory and held that the error in not doing so is reversible because a harm analysis is inapplicable to such error. | 2 | 2 |
Thompson v. Stategreen1 sentence2025“The jury is concerned at the punishment phase hearing with evaluating a defendant’s background and character independent of the commission of the crime on trial.” Thompson v. State, 33 S.W.3d 847, 853 (Tex. App.—Tyler 2000, pet. ref’d). 10 B. | 1 | 1 |
Wilson v. Stategreen1 sentence2020“When we identify issues that counsel on appeal should have addressed but did not, we need not be able to say with certainty that those issues have merit; we need only say that the issues warrant further development by counsel on appeal.” Wilson v. State, 40 S.W.3d 192, 200 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2001, order). | 1 | 1 |
McKinney v. Stategreen1 sentence2017McKinney v. State, 179 S.W.3d 565, 569 (Tex. Crim. | 1 | 1 |
Linton v. Stategreen1 sentence2015See Linton v. State, 15 S.W.3d 615, 620 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2000, pet. ref’d); Jackson v. State, 105 S.W.3d 321, 330 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2003, pet. ref’d). | 1 | 1 |
Jackson v. Stategreen1 sentence2015See Linton v. State, 15 S.W.3d 615, 620 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2000, pet. ref’d); Jackson v. State, 105 S.W.3d 321, 330 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2003, pet. ref’d). | 1 | 1 |
McGee v. Stategreen1 sentence2012Generally, for a case in which there is an acquittal on one of the charges and a conviction on another, “the State cannot relitigate the acquittal at the punishment phase hearing by introducing testimony that is relevant only to the charge on which the defendant was acquitted.” McGee v. State, 197 S.W.3d 802, 805 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2006), aff’d, 233 S.W.3d at 318 . | 1 | 1 |
Amaro v. Stategreen2 sentences2005See Kirtley v. State, 56 S.W.3d 48, 51 (Tex.Crim.App.2001); Vidaurri v. State, 49 S.W.3d 880, 885 (Tex.Crim.App. 2001); McGee v. State, 124 S.W.3d 253, 256 (Tex.App.-Fort Worth 2003, pet. ref'd); Jones v. State, 39 S.W.3d 691, 693 (Tex. App.-Corpus Christi 2001, no pet.); Amaro v. State, 970 S.W.2d 172, 173 (Tex.App.Fort Worth 1998, no pet.). 2005See Kirtley v. State, 56 S.W.3d 48, 51 (Tex.Crim.App.2001); Vidaurri v. State, 49 S.W.3d 880, 885 (Tex.Crim.App.2001); McGee v. State, 124 S.W.3d 253, 256 (Tex.App.Fort Worth 2003, pet. ref'd); Jones v. State, 39 S.W.3d 691, 693 (Tex.App.Corpus Christi 2001, no pet.); Amaro v. State, 970 S.W.2d 172, 173 (Tex.App.Fort Worth 1998, no pet.). | 1 | 1 |
Hull v. Stategreen1 sentence2005See Hull v. State, 67 S.W.3d 215, 217 (Tex.Crim.App.2002) (stating that Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 33.1 requires, as a prerequisite to presenting a complaint for appellate review, that a timely, request, objection, or motion be made and ruled upon by trial court). 3.Potential Errors Occurring After Adjudication Additionally, the trial court gave Bray the opportunity to offer mitigating evidence, and he did so during the punishment phase of the hearing. | 1 | 1 |
Jaubert v. Stategreen1 sentence2005See Jaubert v. State , 74 S.W.3d 1, 6 (Tex. Crim. | 1 | 1 |
McGee v. Stategreen2 sentences2005See Kirtley v. State, 56 S.W.3d 48, 51 (Tex.Crim.App.2001); Vidaurri v. State, 49 S.W.3d 880, 885 (Tex.Crim.App. 2001); McGee v. State, 124 S.W.3d 253, 256 (Tex.App.-Fort Worth 2003, pet. ref'd); Jones v. State, 39 S.W.3d 691, 693 (Tex. App.-Corpus Christi 2001, no pet.); Amaro v. State, 970 S.W.2d 172, 173 (Tex.App.Fort Worth 1998, no pet.). 2005See Kirtley v. State, 56 S.W.3d 48, 51 (Tex.Crim.App.2001); Vidaurri v. State, 49 S.W.3d 880, 885 (Tex.Crim.App.2001); McGee v. State, 124 S.W.3d 253, 256 (Tex.App.Fort Worth 2003, pet. ref'd); Jones v. State, 39 S.W.3d 691, 693 (Tex.App.Corpus Christi 2001, no pet.); Amaro v. State, 970 S.W.2d 172, 173 (Tex.App.Fort Worth 1998, no pet.). | 1 | 1 |
Jones v. Stategreen2 sentences2005See Kirtley v. State, 56 S.W.3d 48, 51 (Tex.Crim.App.2001); Vidaurri v. State, 49 S.W.3d 880, 885 (Tex.Crim.App. 2001); McGee v. State, 124 S.W.3d 253, 256 (Tex.App.-Fort Worth 2003, pet. ref'd); Jones v. State, 39 S.W.3d 691, 693 (Tex. App.-Corpus Christi 2001, no pet.); Amaro v. State, 970 S.W.2d 172, 173 (Tex.App.Fort Worth 1998, no pet.). 2005See Kirtley v. State, 56 S.W.3d 48, 51 (Tex.Crim.App.2001); Vidaurri v. State, 49 S.W.3d 880, 885 (Tex.Crim.App.2001); McGee v. State, 124 S.W.3d 253, 256 (Tex.App.Fort Worth 2003, pet. ref'd); Jones v. State, 39 S.W.3d 691, 693 (Tex.App.Corpus Christi 2001, no pet.); Amaro v. State, 970 S.W.2d 172, 173 (Tex.App.Fort Worth 1998, no pet.). | 1 | 1 |
Vidaurri v. Stategreen2 sentences2005See Kirtley v. State, 56 S.W.3d 48, 51 (Tex.Crim.App.2001); Vidaurri v. State, 49 S.W.3d 880, 885 (Tex.Crim.App. 2001); McGee v. State, 124 S.W.3d 253, 256 (Tex.App.-Fort Worth 2003, pet. ref'd); Jones v. State, 39 S.W.3d 691, 693 (Tex. App.-Corpus Christi 2001, no pet.); Amaro v. State, 970 S.W.2d 172, 173 (Tex.App.Fort Worth 1998, no pet.). 2005See Kirtley v. State, 56 S.W.3d 48, 51 (Tex.Crim.App.2001); Vidaurri v. State, 49 S.W.3d 880, 885 (Tex.Crim.App.2001); McGee v. State, 124 S.W.3d 253, 256 (Tex.App.Fort Worth 2003, pet. ref'd); Jones v. State, 39 S.W.3d 691, 693 (Tex.App.Corpus Christi 2001, no pet.); Amaro v. State, 970 S.W.2d 172, 173 (Tex.App.Fort Worth 1998, no pet.). | 1 | 1 |
Mitchell v. Stategreen1 sentence2003See Mitchell v. State , 931 S.W.2d 950, 954 (Tex. Crim. | 1 | 1 |
Smith v. Stategreen1 sentence2002Furthermore, we do not treat omissions of the deliberateness special issue as a "waiver.” Smith, 907 S.W.2d at 534 (remanding for a new punishment phase hearing because of the *875 omission of the deliberateness special issue); Powell, 897 S.W.2d at 318 (same); cf. Prystash, 3 S.W.3d at 532 ("But we do not treat omissions of the elements of the offense as waivers."). 12 . | 1 | 1 |
Prystash v. Stategreen1 sentence2002Furthermore, we do not treat omissions of the deliberateness special issue as a "waiver.” Smith, 907 S.W.2d at 534 (remanding for a new punishment phase hearing because of the *875 omission of the deliberateness special issue); Powell, 897 S.W.2d at 318 (same); cf. Prystash, 3 S.W.3d at 532 ("But we do not treat omissions of the elements of the offense as waivers."). 12 . | 1 | 1 |
Powell v. Stategreen1 sentence2002Furthermore, we do not treat omissions of the deliberateness special issue as a "waiver.” Smith, 907 S.W.2d at 534 (remanding for a new punishment phase hearing because of the *875 omission of the deliberateness special issue); Powell, 897 S.W.2d at 318 (same); cf. Prystash, 3 S.W.3d at 532 ("But we do not treat omissions of the elements of the offense as waivers."). 12 . | 1 | 1 |
| Sparkman v. Stategreen | 1 | 1 |
| Ybarra v. Stategreen | 1 | 1 |
| Murphy v. Stategreen | 1 | 1 |
| Boles v. Stategreen | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Texas. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Peek v. State
green
2 sentences2006Issue Four - Reopening the Evidence In his final issue, appellant contends that the trial court abused its discretion by allowing the State to “reopen” its case-in-chief during the punishment phase in violation of Peek v. State , 106 S.W.3d 72 (Tex. Crim. 2006Issue Four - Reopening the Evidence In his final issue, appellant contends that the trial court abused its discretion by allowing the State to “reopen” its case-in-chief during the punishment phase in violation of Peek v. State, 106 S.W.3d 72 (Tex. Crim. | 5 | 2001–2006 |
Williams v. Taylor
green
2 sentences2013See also Wiggins v. Smith , 539 U.S. 510 (2003); Williams v. Taylor , 529 U.S. 362 (2000). 2013See also Wiggins v. Smith, 539 U.S. 510 (2003); Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 362 (2000). | 4 | 2010–2013 |
Rompilla v. Beard
red
2 sentences2013Based on the habeas court's findings and conclusions and our own review, we hold that applicant's counsel failed to investigate applicant's background or present mitigating evidence at the punishment phase in violation of Rompilla v Beard , 545 U.S. 374 (2005). 2013Based on the habeas court’s findings and conclusions and our own review, we hold that applicant’s counsel failed to investigate applicant’s Rivera - 3 background or present mitigating evidence at the punishment phase in violation of Rompilla v Beard, 545 U.S. 374 (2005). | 4 | 2010–2013 |
Strickland v. Washington
green
2 sentences2008We review appellant's second issue that he received ineffective assistance during the punishment phase under the standard enunciated in Strickland v. Washington , 466 U.S. 668 , 104 S.Ct. 2052 , 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984). 2008We review appellant's second issue that he received ineffective assistance during the punishment phase under the standard enunciated in Strickland v. Washington , 466 U.S. 668 , 104 S.Ct. 2052 , 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984). | 4 | 2006–2008 |
Issa v. State
green
2 sentences2009Citing Issa v. State, 826 S.W.2d. 159 (Tex. Crim. 2009Citing Issa v. State , 826 S.W.2d. 159 (Tex. Crim. | 2 | 2009–2009 |
Frausto v. State
green
2 sentences2001The court agreed with Hardin that reading the enhancement paragraph before the punishment phase was error, because it could prejudice the jury "at the outset of the trial by an announcement that the State believes the defendant has been previously convicted of a prior offense." Id . at 211-12 (citing Frausto , 642 S.W.2d at 509 ). 2001The court agreed with Hardin that reading the enhancement paragraph before the punishment phase was error, because it could prejudice the jury “at the outset of the trial by an announcement that the State believes the defendant has been previously convicted of a prior offense. ” Id. at 211-12 (citing Frausto, 642 S.W.2d at 509 ). | 2 | 2001–2001 |
Ex Parte Duffy
green
2 sentences1999Ineffective Assistance of Counsel at the Punishment Phase In issue three, Brown argues that he received ineffective assistance of counsel at the punishment phase of trial under the test of Ex parte Duffy, 607 S.W.2d 507 (Tex.Cr.App.1980). 1994Craig, 825 S.W.2d at 130 (citing Ex parte Duffy, 607 S.W.2d 507 , 514 n. 14 (Tex.Crim.App.1980)). | 2 | 1994–1999 |
McGee v. State
green
1 sentence2012Generally, for a case in which there is an acquittal on one of the charges and a conviction on another, “the State cannot relitigate the acquittal at the punishment phase hearing by introducing testimony that is relevant only to the charge on which the defendant was acquitted.” McGee v. State, 197 S.W.3d 802, 805 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2006), aff’d, 233 S.W.3d at 318 . | 1 | 2012–2012 |
Ex Parte Tarver
green
1 sentence2002Ex parte Tarver, 725 S.W.2d 195 (Tex.Crim. | 1 | 2002–2002 |
| Milburn v. State green | 1 | 2001–2001 |
| Hardin v. State green | 1 | 2001–2001 |
| Craig v. State green | 1 | 1994–1994 |
| Ex Parte Canedo green | 1 | 1994–1994 |
| Ex Parte Felton green | 1 | 1994–1994 |
| Ochoa v. State green | 1 | 1984–1984 |
| Rogers v. State green | 1 | 1981–1981 |
| Hill v. State green | 1 | 1981–1981 |
| Handley v. State green | 1 | 1981–1981 |