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.
6 Texas opinions name it 1 courts 1999–2004 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 |
|---|---|---|
Kirtley v. Stategreen2 sentences2004See Kirtley v. State, 56 S.W.3d 48, 51-52 (Tex.Crim.App.2001) (allowing appeal of issues related to punishment phase following adjudication of guilt). 2004See Kirtley v. State, 56 S.W.3d 48, 51-52 (Tex.Crim.App.2001) (allowing appeal of issues related to punishment phase following adjudication of guilt). | 4 | 4 |
Flores v. Stategreen2 sentences2004Flores v. State , 43 S.W.3d 628, 629 (Tex. App.–Houston [1st Dist.] 2001, no pet.); Sherman v. State , 12 S.W.3d 489, 492 (Tex. App.–Dallas 1999, no pet.). 2004Flores v. State, 43 S.W.3d 628, 629 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 2001, no pet.); Sherman v. State, 12 S.W.3d 489, 492 (Tex.App.-Dallas 1999, no pet.). | 3 | 3 |
Sherman v. Stategreen2 sentences2004Flores v. State , 43 S.W.3d 628, 629 (Tex. App.–Houston [1st Dist.] 2001, no pet.); Sherman v. State , 12 S.W.3d 489, 492 (Tex. App.–Dallas 1999, no pet.). 2004Flores v. State, 43 S.W.3d 628, 629 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 2001, no pet.); Sherman v. State, 12 S.W.3d 489, 492 (Tex.App.-Dallas 1999, no pet.). | 3 | 3 |
Perez v. Stategreen1 sentence2004See Perez, 129 S.W.3d at 288 (finding that independent review of record in Anders appeal following guilty plea entered without benefit of punishment recommendation includes: (1) potential jurisdictional defects; (2) voluntariness of plea; (3) error that is not independent of and supports judgment of guilt; and (4) potential error occurring after guilty plea). 15 F. Compliance in Substance as Well as Form Finally, we hold that our duty to review the record independently in Anders cases requires us to determine that the record substantiates that the defendant has no right of appeal if the trial | 1 | 1 |
Johnson v. Stategreen1 sentence2003Johnson v. State, 84 S.W.3d 658, 660 (Tex.Crim.App.2002). | 1 | 1 |
Solis v. Stategreen1 sentence1999See Solis v. State, 890 S.W.2d 518, 520 (Tex.App.-Dallas 1994, no pet.) (construing the extra-notice requirements of former rule 40(b)(1)). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Texas. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||