defendant cannot challenge in Texas

43 Texas opinions name it 3 courts 1855–2023 5 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.

Followed or applied (24)

Case	Followed	Cited
Manuel v. Stategreen texcrimapp · 1999 · cited in 4 Texas opinions naming this issue, 2008–2022 2 sentences 2022See Manuel v. State, 994 S.W.2d 658 , 661–62 (Tex. Crim. 2008See Manuel v. State, 994 S.W.2d 658 (Tex.Crim.App. 1999); Connolly v. State, 983 S.W.2d 738, 741 (Tex.Crim.App. 1999); Phynes v. State, 828 S.W.2d 1, 2 (Tex.Crim.App. 1992); Drew v. State, 942 S.W.2d 98, 99 (Tex.App.–Amarillo 1997, no pet.) (each noting that the plain meaning of Art. 42.12, § 5(b) is that an appellant whose deferred adjudication community supervision has been revoked and who has been adjudicated guilty of the original charge, may not raise on appeal contentions of error in the adjudication of guilt process).	4	4
Cole v. Stategreen texcrimapp · 1979 · cited in 4 Texas opinions naming this issue, 2005–2014 2 sentences 2014See Harris, 160 S.W.3d at 626 (“A defendant cannot challenge a revocation finding on an allegation to which he pleaded “true.”) (citing Cole v. State, 578 S.W.2d 127, 128 (Tex. Crim. 2013Generally, a defendant cannot challenge a revocation finding to which he pleaded “true.” See Cole v. State, 578 S.W.2d 127, 128 (Tex.Crim.App.1979).	4	4
Speth v. Stategreen texcrimapp · 1999 · cited in 8 Texas opinions naming this issue, 2003–2012 2 sentences 2012Id. at 535 ; Vale v. State, 486 S.W.2d 370 (Tex. Crim. 2010Id. at 535 ; In re V.A. , 140 S.W.3d 858, 860 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2004, no pet.).	3	8
King v. Stategreen texcrimapp · 1983 · cited in 3 Texas opinions naming this issue, 2018–2023 2 sentences 2023King v. State, 649 S.W.2d 42, 44 (Tex. Crim. 12 App. 1983 ); Brennan v. State, 334 S.W.3d 64, 79 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2009, no pet.); Tutt v. State, 940 S.W.2d 114, 121 (Tex. App.—Tyler 1996, pet. ref’d). 2018See King v. State, 649 S.W.2d 42, 44 (Tex. Crim.	3	3
Ex Parte Richgreen texcrimapp · 2006 · cited in 3 Texas opinions naming this issue, 2013–2014 2 sentences 2014Ex parte Rich, 194 S.W.3d 508, 513 (Tex. Crim. 2014Ex parte Rich, 194 S.W.3d 508, 513 (Tex. Crim.	3	3
Phynes v. Stategreen texcrimapp · 1992 · cited in 3 Texas opinions naming this issue, 2008–2008 2 sentences 2008See Manuel v. State, 994 S.W.2d 658 (Tex.Crim.App. 1999); Connolly v. State, 983 S.W.2d 738, 741 (Tex.Crim.App. 1999); Phynes v. State, 828 S.W.2d 1, 2 (Tex.Crim.App. 1992); Drew v. State, 942 S.W.2d 98, 99 (Tex.App.–Amarillo 1997, no pet.) (each noting that the plain meaning of Art. 42.12, § 5(b) is that an appellant whose deferred adjudication community supervision has been revoked and who has been adjudicated guilty of the original charge, may not raise on appeal contentions of error in the adjudication of guilt process). 2008See Manuel v. State, 994 S.W.2d 658 (Tex.Crim.App. 1999); Connolly v. State, 983 S.W.2d 738, 741 (Tex.Crim.App. 1999); Phynes v. State, 828 S.W.2d 1, 2 (Tex.Crim.App. 1992); Drew v. State, 942 S.W.2d 98, 99 (Tex.App.–Amarillo 1997, no pet.) (each noting that the plain meaning of Art. 42.12, § 5(b) is that an appellant whose deferred adjudication community supervision has been revoked and who has been adjudicated guilty of the original charge, may not raise on appeal contentions of error in the adjudication of guilt process).	3	3
Drew v. Stategreen texapp · 1997 · cited in 3 Texas opinions naming this issue, 2008–2008 2 sentences 2008See Manuel v. State, 994 S.W.2d 658 (Tex.Crim.App. 1999); Connolly v. State, 983 S.W.2d 738, 741 (Tex.Crim.App. 1999); Phynes v. State, 828 S.W.2d 1, 2 (Tex.Crim.App. 1992); Drew v. State, 942 S.W.2d 98, 99 (Tex.App.–Amarillo 1997, no pet.) (each noting that the plain meaning of Art. 42.12, § 5(b) is that an appellant whose deferred adjudication community supervision has been revoked and who has been adjudicated guilty of the original charge, may not raise on appeal contentions of error in the adjudication of guilt process). 2008See Manuel v. State, 994 S.W.2d 658 (Tex.Crim.App. 1999); Connolly v. State, 983 S.W.2d 738, 741 (Tex.Crim.App. 1999); Phynes v. State, 828 S.W.2d 1, 2 (Tex.Crim.App. 1992); Drew v. State, 942 S.W.2d 98, 99 (Tex.App.–Amarillo 1997, no pet.) (each noting that the plain meaning of Art. 42.12, § 5(b) is that an appellant whose deferred adjudication community supervision has been revoked and who has been adjudicated guilty of the original charge, may not raise on appeal contentions of error in the adjudication of guilt process).	3	3
Connolly v. Stategreen texcrimapp · 1999 · cited in 3 Texas opinions naming this issue, 2008–2008 2 sentences 2008See Manuel v. State, 994 S.W.2d 658 (Tex.Crim.App. 1999); Connolly v. State, 983 S.W.2d 738, 741 (Tex.Crim.App. 1999); Phynes v. State, 828 S.W.2d 1, 2 (Tex.Crim.App. 1992); Drew v. State, 942 S.W.2d 98, 99 (Tex.App.–Amarillo 1997, no pet.) (each noting that the plain meaning of Art. 42.12, § 5(b) is that an appellant whose deferred adjudication community supervision has been revoked and who has been adjudicated guilty of the original charge, may not raise on appeal contentions of error in the adjudication of guilt process). 2008See Manuel v. State, 994 S.W.2d 658 (Tex.Crim.App. 1999); Connolly v. State, 983 S.W.2d 738, 741 (Tex.Crim.App. 1999); Phynes v. State, 828 S.W.2d 1, 2 (Tex.Crim.App. 1992); Drew v. State, 942 S.W.2d 98, 99 (Tex.App.–Amarillo 1997, no pet.) (each noting that the plain meaning of Art. 42.12, § 5(b) is that an appellant whose deferred adjudication community supervision has been revoked and who has been adjudicated guilty of the original charge, may not raise on appeal contentions of error in the adjudication of guilt process).	3	3
Zamora, Jaime Arturogreen texcrimapp · 2013 · cited in 3 Texas opinions naming this issue, 2019–2022 2 sentences 2022See Zamora v. State, 411 S.W.3d 504, 513 (Tex. Crim. 2019As a result, “[a]bsent a timely and proper request or objection, the defendant cannot claim error on appeal based on the trial court’s failure to instruct the jury as to a defensive issue.” Flores v. State, 573 S.W.3d 864, 867 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2019, pet. ref’d) (citing Zamora, 411 S.W.3d at 513 ; Mays, 318 S.W.3d at 382–83); see Williams v. State, 273 S.W.3d 200, 223 (Tex. Crim.	2	3
Cunningham v. Stategreen texcrimapp · 1959 · cited in 2 Texas opinions naming this issue, 2021–2021 2 sentences 2021See, e.g., Cunningham v. State, 322 S.W.2d 538, 540 (Tex. Crim. 2021“Authority” to Address Weatherly’s Claim According to the dissent, we have “also cast[] doubt on this court’s ‘authority’ to address the merits of Weatherly’s claim” and we have “narrow[ed] the scope of this court’s review.” However, the dissent acknowledges that in “an appeal from a nunc pro tunc order, a defendant cannot challenge his or her underlying conviction and sentence.” Cunningham, 322 S.W.2d at 540 .	1	2
Harris v. Stategreen texapp · 2005 · cited in 2 Texas opinions naming this issue, 2008–2014 2 sentences 2014See Harris, 160 S.W.3d at 626 (“A defendant cannot challenge a revocation finding on an allegation to which he pleaded “true.”) (citing Cole v. State, 578 S.W.2d 127, 128 (Tex. Crim. 2008However, a defendant cannot challenge a revocation finding on an allegation to which he pled “true.” Id. (citing Cole v. State, 578 S.W.2d 127, 128 (Tex. Crim.	1	2
Brennan v. Stategreen texapp · 2009 · cited in 1 Texas opinions naming this issue, 2023–2023 2 sentences 2023King v. State, 649 S.W.2d 42, 44 (Tex. Crim. 12 App. 1983 ); Brennan v. State, 334 S.W.3d 64, 79 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2009, no pet.); Tutt v. State, 940 S.W.2d 114, 121 (Tex. App.—Tyler 1996, pet. ref’d). 2023See Brennan, 334 S.W.3d at 79 ; see also Brown v. State, No. 03-16-00011-CR, 2017 WL 876029 , at *6 (Tex. App.—Austin Feb. 28, 2017, pet. ref’d) (mem. op., not designated for publication) (explaining that “a defendant cannot claim that his trial counsel provided ineffective assistance of counsel by failing to call witnesses unless the defendant can show that the witnesses were available and that their testimony would have benefitted the defendant”).	1	1
Tutt v. Stategreen texapp · 1997 · cited in 1 Texas opinions naming this issue, 2023–2023 1 sentence 2023King v. State, 649 S.W.2d 42, 44 (Tex. Crim. 12 App. 1983 ); Brennan v. State, 334 S.W.3d 64, 79 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2009, no pet.); Tutt v. State, 940 S.W.2d 114, 121 (Tex. App.—Tyler 1996, pet. ref’d).	1	1
Alexander v. Stategreen texapp · 1993 · cited in 1 Texas opinions naming this issue, 2019–2019 1 sentence 2019Alexander v. 9 State, 868 S.W.2d 356, 361 (Tex. App.—Dallas 1993, no pet.) (citing Williams, 758 S.W.2d at 786 ).	1	1
Williams v. Stategreen texcrimapp · 2008 · cited in 1 Texas opinions naming this issue, 2019–2019 1 sentence 2019As a result, “[a]bsent a timely and proper request or objection, the defendant cannot claim error on appeal based on the trial court’s failure to instruct the jury as to a defensive issue.” Flores v. State, 573 S.W.3d 864, 867 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2019, pet. ref’d) (citing Zamora, 411 S.W.3d at 513 ; Mays, 318 S.W.3d at 382–83); see Williams v. State, 273 S.W.3d 200, 223 (Tex. Crim.	1	1
Francisco Flores v. Stategreen texapp · 2019 · cited in 1 Texas opinions naming this issue, 2019–2019 1 sentence 2019As a result, “[a]bsent a timely and proper request or objection, the defendant cannot claim error on appeal based on the trial court’s failure to instruct the jury as to a defensive issue.” Flores v. State, 573 S.W.3d 864, 867 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2019, pet. ref’d) (citing Zamora, 411 S.W.3d at 513 ; Mays, 318 S.W.3d at 382–83); see Williams v. State, 273 S.W.3d 200, 223 (Tex. Crim.	1	1
Raymond v. Stategreen texapp · 1982 · cited in 1 Texas opinions naming this issue, 2015–2015 1 sentence 2015See Raymond v. State, 640 S.W.2d 678, 679 (Tex. App.—El Paso 1982, no pet.). 4 As a result of the danger inherent in the act of Resisting Arrest, a defendant cannot claim that his use of force against the officer is excused by the unlawful nature of the arrest.	1	1
United States v. Gary Joseph Bindleygreen ca10 · 1998 · cited in 1 Texas opinions naming this issue, 2014–2014 1 sentence 2014See United States v. Bindley, 157 F.3d 1235, 1243 (10th Cir. 1998).	1	1
In Re VAgreen texapp · 2004 · cited in 1 Texas opinions naming this issue, 2010–2010 1 sentence 2010Id. at 535 ; In re V.A. , 140 S.W.3d 858, 860 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2004, no pet.).	1	1
University of Houston v. Elthongreen texapp · 1999 · cited in 1 Texas opinions naming this issue, 2005–2005 1 sentence 2005See Elthon, 9 S.W.3d at 356-57 (concluding that a limitations defense under the Whistleblower Act is an affirmative defense that cannot be a basis for sustaining a plea to the jurisdiction); Barrett, 112 S.W.3d at 817 .	1	1
De Leon v. Stategreen texapp · 1990 · cited in 1 Texas opinions naming this issue, 2002–2002 1 sentence 2002See DeLeon v. State , 797 S.W.2d 186, 188 (Tex. App.- Corpus Christi 1990, no pet.).	1	1
Routledge v. Stategreen texapp · 1992 · cited in 1 Texas opinions naming this issue, 1994–1994	1	1
Johnson v. Stategreen texcrimapp · 1973 · cited in 1 Texas opinions naming this issue, 1990–1990	1	1
United States v. Anthony J. Demma, United States of America v. Henry Brulaygreen ca9 · 1975 · cited in 1 Texas opinions naming this issue, 1984–1984	1	1

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

Case	Negative	Cited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Texas. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (15)

Case	Cited	Years
Vale v. State green texcrimapp · 1972 2 sentences 2012Id. at 535 ; Vale v. State, 486 S.W.2d 370 (Tex. Crim. 2009Id. at 535; Vale v. State , 486 S.W.2d 370 (Tex. Crim.	6	2003–2012
Atchison v. State green texapp · 2004 2 sentences 2014App. [Panel Op.] 1979); Atchison v. State, 124 S.W.3d 755 , 758 n.4 (Tex. App.— Austin 2003, pet. ref’d); Moore v. State, 11 S.W.3d 495 , 498 n.1 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2000, no pet.) (“And once a plea of true has been entered, a defendant may not challenge the sufficiency of the evidence to support the subsequent revocation.”)). 2005A defendant cannot challenge a revocation finding on an allegation to which he pleaded “true.” See Cole v. State, 578 S.W,2d 127, 128 (Tex.Crim.App. [Panel Op.] 1979); Atchison v. State, 124 S.W.3d 755 , 758 n. 4 (Tex.App.-Austin 2003, pet. ref'd); Moore v. State, 11 S.W.3d 495 , 498 n. 1 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 2000, no pet.).	2	2005–2014
Moore v. State green texapp · 2000 2 sentences 2014App. [Panel Op.] 1979); Atchison v. State, 124 S.W.3d 755 , 758 n.4 (Tex. App.— Austin 2003, pet. ref’d); Moore v. State, 11 S.W.3d 495 , 498 n.1 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2000, no pet.) (“And once a plea of true has been entered, a defendant may not challenge the sufficiency of the evidence to support the subsequent revocation.”)). 2005A defendant cannot challenge a revocation finding on an allegation to which he pleaded “true.” See Cole v. State, 578 S.W,2d 127, 128 (Tex.Crim.App. [Panel Op.] 1979); Atchison v. State, 124 S.W.3d 755 , 758 n. 4 (Tex.App.-Austin 2003, pet. ref'd); Moore v. State, 11 S.W.3d 495 , 498 n. 1 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 2000, no pet.).	2	2005–2014
Ex Parte Williams green texcrimapp · 1988 1 sentence 2019Alexander v. 9 State, 868 S.W.2d 356, 361 (Tex. App.—Dallas 1993, no pet.) (citing Williams, 758 S.W.2d at 786 ).	1	2019–2019
Mays v. State green texcrimapp · 2010 1 sentence 2019As a result, “[a]bsent a timely and proper request or objection, the defendant cannot claim error on appeal based on the trial court’s failure to instruct the jury as to a defensive issue.” Flores v. State, 573 S.W.3d 864, 867 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2019, pet. ref’d) (citing Zamora, 411 S.W.3d at 513 ; Mays, 318 S.W.3d at 382–83); see Williams v. State, 273 S.W.3d 200, 223 (Tex. Crim.	1	2019–2019
North Carolina v. Alford green scotus · 1970 2 sentences 2016In North Carolina v. Alford, 400 U.S. 25 , 91 S.Ct. 160 , 27 L.Ed.2d 162 (1970), the defendant pled guilty to a lesser, included offense of the capital offense with which he had been charged even though he protested his innocence during the plea colloquy. 2016In North Carolina v. Alford, 400 U.S. 25 , 91 S.Ct. 160 , 27 L.Ed.2d 162 (1970), the defendant pled guilty to a lesser, included offense of the capital offense with which he had been charged even though he protested his innocence during the plea colloquy.	1	2016–2016
Garza v. State green texcrimapp · 2007 1 sentence 2012The gravamen of the organized-crime offense is the additional harm and danger to the public of having the members of a criminal organization working together to commit crimes on an ongoing basis.9 That is why the punishment range for a conviction under the organized criminal activity statute is one degree higher than for the substantive offense itself.10 But if the State has already obtained its enhanced punishment for the greater 7 Id. at 351-52 . 8 TEX .	1	2012–2012
Tucker v. State green texcrimapp · 1988 1 sentence 2009Tucker, 771 S.W.2d at 534 .	1	2009–2009
UNIV. OF TX MED. BR. AT GALVES. v. Barrett green texapp · 2003 1 sentence 2005See Elthon, 9 S.W.3d at 356-57 (concluding that a limitations defense under the Whistleblower Act is an affirmative defense that cannot be a basis for sustaining a plea to the jurisdiction); Barrett, 112 S.W.3d at 817 .	1	2005–2005
Garza v. State green texcrimapp · 1972	1	1986–1986
Robinson v. State green texcrimapp · 1986	1	1986–1986
Harveson v. Youngblood green texcommnapp · 1931	1	1966–1966
Centennial Mutual Life Ass'n v. Parham green · 1891	1	1915–1915
Thompson v. Cartwright neutral tex · 1846	1	1855–1855
McMillan v. Croft neutral ca9 · 1847	1	1855–1855

Statutes the citing opinions construe

TX § Tex. Penal Code § 12.42 (5) TX § Tex. Penal Code § 12.35 (4) TX § Tex. Penal Code § 31.03 (3)

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.

Where else courts name it

IL 96 (1941–2026) OH 80 (1998–2026) WA 47 (1904–2026) TX 43 (1855–2023) PA 39 (1907–2025) CA 38 (1963–2026) NY 34 (1873–2025) LA 27 (1920–2019) KS 20 (1885–2024) AL 20 (1912–2009) CT 18 (1983–2018) MI 13 (1886–2023) FL 12 (1947–2015) MA 10 (1942–2025) IN 10 (1983–2019) NM 9 (1938–2023) MO 8 (1990–2014) AZ 8 (1973–2025) OR 8 (1897–2023) DC 6 (1994–2016) CO 6 (1990–2025) NC 6 (1978–2001) SD 5 (1975–2014) WI 5 (1975–1993) ID 5 (2008–2026) MT 4 (1980–2016) MS 4 (2015–2026) VA 4 (1990–2014) VT 4 (2003–2007) NJ 3 (1905–1983) KY 3 (1934–2025) RI 3 (1980–1990) UT 3 (1968–2019) IA 3 (2018–2024) ME 3 (1975–1996) AR 2 (2009–2009) ND 2 (1962–2023) AK 2 (1981–2010) DE 2 (2020–2025)

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.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check