green
Positive treatment
Trending · 84 recent citers
Quoted verbatim 1×
48.8 score
“it is clear that apprendi , ring and blakely apply only to aggravating facts that the prosecution must prove to support a particular sentence.... a state may, without violating due process, even require a defendant to prove facts in mitigation of punishment.”
Treatment trajectory · 2005 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2005
2015
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 50 distinct citers.
examined
Cited as authority (quoted)
Franklin v. State
it is clear that apprendi , ring and blakely apply only to aggravating facts that the prosecution must prove to support a particular sentence.... a state may, without violating due process, even require a defendant to prove facts in mitigation of punishment.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
DAVIS, WILLIAM GEORGE v. the State of Texas
App. 2007); Perry v. State, 158 S.W.3d 438, 449 (Tex. Crim.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Hall, Gabriel
(2×)
App. 2007); Perry v. State, 158 S.W.3d 438, 449 (Tex. Crim.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Johnson, Matthew Lee
See Art. 37.071, § 2(g); Perry v. State, 158 S.W.3d 438, 447 (Tex. Crim.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Prevost, Jeffery Keith
(2×)
also: Cited "see"
Apprendi and Ring apply only to aggravating facts “legally essential to the punishment.” Perry v. State, 158 S.W.3d 438, 448 (Tex. Crim.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Cole, Jaime Piero
App. 2007); Perry v. State , 158 S.W.3d 438, 449 (Tex. Crim.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Kent Sprouse v. William Stephens, Director
Sprouse, 2007 WL 283152 , at *9 & n. 20 (citing Perry v. State, 158 S.W.3d 438, 446-47 (Tex.Crim.App.2004)).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Olsen, Christian
App. 2007); Perry v. State , 158 S.W.3d 438, 446-48 (Tex. Crim.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Beunka Adams v. Rick Thaler, Director
Perry v. State, 158 S.W.3d 438, 446-48 (Tex.Crim.App.2004) (“By the time the jury reaches the mitigation special issue, the prosecution has proven all aggravating ‘facts legally essential to the punishment.’ ” (quoting Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296, 313 , 124 S.Ct. 2531 , 159 L.Ed.2d 403 (2004)); Blue v. State, 125 S.W.3d 491, 500-01 (Tex.Crim.App.2003) (“Under Article 37.071, there is no authorized increase in punishment contingent on the jury’s finding on the mitigating special issue.”).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Davila, Erick Daniel
(2×)
also: Cited "see, e.g."
App. 2006); Perry v. State, 158 S.W.3d 438, 446-48 (Tex. Crim.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Davila, Erick Daniel
(2×)
also: Cited "see, e.g."
App. 2006); Perry v. State, 158 S.W.3d 438, 446-48 (Tex. Crim.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Coble v. State
(2×)
App.1998) ("[T]he law does not require a juror to consider any particular piece of evidence as mitigating; all the law requires is that a defendant be allowed to present relevant mitigating evidence and that the jury be provided a vehicle to give mitigating effect to that evidence if the jury finds it to be mitigating."). [134] Id. (citing Green v. State, 912 S.W.2d 189 (Tex.Crim.App. 1995)); see also Davis v. State, 313 S.W.3d 317, 346 (Tex.Crim.App.2010) (following Raby and holding that the trial court does not abuse his discretion in finding that appellant's questioning consider specific mi…
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Coble, Billie Wayne
App. 2006); Perry v. State, 158 S.W.3d 438, 446-48 (Tex. Crim.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Coble, Billie Wayne
App. 2006) ; Perry v. State, 158 S.W.3d 438, 446-48 (Tex. Crim.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Chanthakoummane, Kosoul
App. 2007); Perry v. State, 158 S.W.3d 438, 449 (Tex. Crim.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Chanthakoummane, Kosoul
App. 2007); Perry v. State, 158 S.W.3d 438, 449 (Tex. Crim.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Julio Cesar Puente v. State
See id. ; Perry v. State , 158 S.W.3d 438, 446 (Tex. Crim.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Coleman, Lisa Ann
App. 1994). 55 Perry v. State, 158 S.W.3d 438, 446-48 (Tex. Crim.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Coleman, Lisa Ann
Perry v. State , 158 S.W.3d 438, 446-48 (Tex. Crim.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Gonzales, Ramiro Felix
App.), cert. denied, 129 S.Ct. 80 (2008). 26 See Roberts, 220 S.W.3d at 534 . 27 See Perry v. State, 158 S.W.3d 438, 448-49 (Tex. Crim.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Segundo v. State
(2×)
GOV'T CODE § 411.148(d) (Vernon 1999). [92] The trial court's factual findings state, "According to the Defendant's testimony, he did not want to give the sample, but the person who took the blood told him that if he did not cooperate, he would be subjected to disciplinary action which would lengthen his term of incarceration." [93] See Potier v. State, 68 S.W.3d 657, 662, 665 (Tex.Crim.App.2002) (noting that "courts are free to apply evidentiary rules that are not arbitrary and unjustified," and concluding that "the exclusion of a defendant's evidence will be constitutional error only if the…
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Segundo, Juan Ramon Meza
App. 2006); Perry v. State , 158 S.W.3d 438, 446-48 (Tex. Crim.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Segundo, Juan Ramon Meza
App. 2006); Perry v. State, 158 S.W.3d 438, 446-48 (Tex. Crim.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Dontae Terrell Moore v. State
See id. at *13; Perry v. State , 158 S.W.3d 438, 446 (Tex. Crim.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Oursbourn, Cody Lee
Therefore, in some cases care must be taken to identify the basis for the defendant’s claim that the jury should be instructed as to a need to disregard a self-incriminating statement.”). 18 See Perry, 158 S.W.3d at 446 (defendant not entitled to any jury instruction under art. 38.23(a) as evidence of his intoxication and injury “does not raise any constitutional voluntariness issues because this evidence does not involve any police coercion or other official Oursbourn Page 11 example, when it is made in response to hallucinations or to a private person’s threat), it is nonetheless “…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Fuller, Barney Ronald
The jury was told, “It is necessary, now, for you to determine from all the evidence in the case, answers to certain questions called ‘Special Issues’ in this charge.” The court’s charge to the jury went on to state that “[i]n determining 58 See Perry v. State, 158 S.W.3d 438, 446-48 (Tex. Crim.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Fuller v. State
(2×)
also: Cited "see"
P. 33.1(a); Aldrich v. State, 104 S.W.3d 890, 894-95 (Tex.Crim.App.2003). [49] Saldano v. State, 70 S.W.3d 873 , 889 & nn. 73 & 74 (Tex.Crim.App.2002). [50] Id. [51] Gonzales v. State, 685 S.W.2d 47, 50 (Tex. Crim.App.1985). [52] Id. [53] 536 U.S. 584 , 122 S.Ct. 2428 , 153 L.Ed.2d 556 (2002). [54] 530 U.S. 466 , 120 S.Ct. 2348 , 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000). [55] See Robison v. State, 888 S.W.2d 473, 481 (Tex.Crim.App.1994); see also Rayford v. State, 125 S.W.3d 521, 533 (Tex.Crim.App. 2003), and Kemp v. State, 846 S.W.2d 289, 308-09 (Tex.Crim.App.1992). [56] Blue v. State, 125 S.W.3d 491, 504-05 (…
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Preyor, Taichin
App.), cert. denied, 128 S. Ct. 282 (2007); Perry v. State, 158 S.W.3d 438, 449 (Tex. Crim.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Preyor, Taichin
App.), cert. denied, 128 S. Ct. 282 (2007); Perry v. State, 158 S.W.3d 438, 449 (Tex. Crim.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Ramirez, Juan Raul Navarro
On appeal, he argues that his "requested charge applied the law to the facts, telling the jury to disregard the statement if they thought that the policemen 'worked on' [appellant] before they turned the machine on." (17) Because appellant relies exclusively upon our decision in Perry v. State , 158 S.W.3d 438, 443-46 (Tex. Crim.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Roberts, Donnie Lee
Perry v. State , 158 S.W.3d 438, 449 (Tex. Crim.
examined
Cited as authority (rule)
Oursbourn v. State
(6×)
also: Cited "see, e.g."
Perry, 158 S.W.3d at 443.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Roberts v. State
(2×)
P. 33.1(a)(1). [36] Rule 33.1(a)(2); Cockrell v. State, 933 S.W.2d 73, 89 (Tex.Crim.App.1996). [37] Goodspeed v. State, 187 S.W.3d 390, 392 (Tex.Crim.App.2005). [38] Id. [39] Id. [40] 61 S.W.3d 378, 394 (Tex.Crim.App.2001). [41] Art. 37.071, § 2(f)(4). [42] 542 U.S. 274 , 124 S.Ct. 2562 , 159 L.Ed.2d 384 (2004). [43] Perry v. State, 158 S.W.3d 438, 449 (Tex. Crim.App.2004), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 126 S.Ct. 416 , 163 L.Ed.2d 317 (2005). [44] Morris v. State, 940 S.W.2d 610, 615 (Tex.Crim.App.1996)("evidence of past abuse, mental illness, intoxication, drug addiction and remorse . . . refl…
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Cobb, Richard Aaron
Perry v. State, 158 S.W.3d 438, 448-449 (Tex. Crim.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Jason Aaron Burkett v. State
Perry v. State, 158 S.W.3d 438, 439 (Tex. Crim.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Burkett v. State
Perry v. State, 158 S.W.3d 438, 439 (Tex.Crim.App.2004, cert. filed). 2 .
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
James Bert Love, Jr. v. State
Perry v. State , 158 S.W.3d 438, 446 (Tex. Crim.
discussed
Cited "see"
Victor Zavala, Jr. v. State
See Perry v. State, 158 S.W.3d 438 , 446-47 & n. 8 (Tex.Crim.App.2004) (noting that this requirement is based on the Sixth Amendment right to a jury trial and the right to have every element of an offense proven beyond a reasonable doubt). 3 .
discussed
Cited "see"
Kelly Wayne Dozier v. State
See Noland v. State , 264 S.W.3d 144 , 150–51 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2007, pet. ref’d) (relying on Patterson v. New York , 432 U.S. 197, 198, 205 , 97 S. Ct. 2319, 2320, 2325 (1977), and Perry v. State , 158 S.W.3d 438 , 448 n.14 (Tex. Crim.
discussed
Cited "see"
Oursbourn v. State
See Perry, 158 S.W.3d at 446 (defendant not entitled to any jury instruction under art. 38.23(a) as evidence of his intoxication and injury "does not raise any constitutional vol-untariness issues because this evidence does not involve any police coercion or other official over-reaching.”); Alvarado v. State, 912 S.W.2d 199, 211 (Tex.Crim.App.1999) (statement involuntary under federal due process “only if there was official, coercive conduct of *170 such a nature that any statement obtained thereby was unlikely to have been the product of an essentially free and unconstrained choice by its…
discussed
Cited "see"
Oursbourn, Cody Lee
See Perry , 158 S.W.3d at 446 (defendant not entitled to any jury instruction under art. 38.23(a) as evidence of his intoxication and injury "does not raise any constitutional voluntariness issues because this evidence does not involve any police coercion or other official over-reaching."); Alvarado v. State , 912 S.W.2dd 199, 211 (Tex. Crim.
discussed
Cited "see"
Martinez v. Quarterman
The Court held that “coercive police activity is a necessary predicate to the finding that a confession is not ‘voluntary’ within the meaning of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.” Id. at 167 , 107 S.Ct. 515 ; accord Perry v. State, 158 S.W.3d 438, 446 (Tex.Crim.App.2004) (explaining that “evidence of appellant’s intoxication and injury does not raise any constitutional voluntariness issues because this evidence does not involve any police coercion or other official over-reaching”).
Ex Parte Alberto VALDEZ, Applicant
AP75039.
Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
Nov 10, 2004.
Levinger, Dallas, Norman, Christi, Paul, State'S, Austin, State.
Cited by 3 opinions | Published
Citer courts: Court of Criminal Appeals of T… (1)
OPINION
In his subsequent application for a writ of habeas corpus, applicant claimed that he is mentally retarded. We determined that applicant had met the requirements of Code of Criminal Procedure Article 11.071, § 5, and we remanded to the trial court for findings of fact and conclusions of law. The trial court held an evidentiary hearing and found that applicant is mentally retarded. The record supports the trial court’s findings. Ex parte Briseno, 135 S.W.3d 1 (Tex.Crim.App.2004). Accordingly, we grant relief. We reform applicant’s sentence to life imprisonment in the Texas Department of Criminal Justice Correctional Institutions Division.