Campbell v. State, 647 S.W.2d 660 (Tex. Crim. App. 1983). · Go Syfert
Search
Campbell v. State, 647 S.W.2d 660 (Tex. Crim. App. 1983). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
50 citation events (7 in the last 25 years) across 3 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Chavez v. State (texapp, 2000-12-07)
Treatment trajectory · 1983 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1983 2004 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 9 distinct citers.
cited Cited as authority (rule) Chavez v. State
Tex. App. · 2000 · confidence medium
Campbell, 647 S.W.2d at 660.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Cantrell v. State
Tex. Crim. App. · 1987 · confidence medium
Albrecht, supra, 486 S.W.2d at 101-102 ; see Robinson v. State, 701 S.W.2d 895, 899 (Tex.Cr.App.1985); Williams, supra, 662 S.W.2d at 346 ; Nance v. State, 647 S.W.2d 660, 662 (Tex.Cr.App.1983); Ruiz v. State, 579 S.W.2d 206, 210 (Tex.Cr.App.1979).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Plante v. State
Tex. Crim. App. · 1985 · confidence medium
This transaction was not inadmissible because it lacked the requisite similarities, but because there was not a “clear showing” that appellant participated in the extraneous transaction as required by e.g., Nance v. State, 647 S.W.2d 660, 662 (Tex.Cr.App.1983).
discussed Cited "see" Segura v. State
Tex. App. · 1992 · signal: see · confidence high
See Campbell v. State, 644 S.W.2d 154,158 (Tex.App. — Austin 1982), pet. refd per curiam, 647 S.W.2d 660 (Tex.Crim.App.1983); see also Brinegar, 338 U.S. at 175-176 , 69 S.Ct. at 1310-1311 . (2) The State Standard — Article I, Section 9, Texas Constitution When we analyze and interpret article I, section 9 of the Texas Constitution, we are not bound by United States Supreme Court decisions considering the comparable fourth amendment issue.
cited Cited "see" Johnson v. State
Tex. Crim. App. · 1989 · signal: see · confidence high
See Sheffield v. State, 650 S.W.2d 813 (Tex.Cr.App.1983), Campbell v. State, 647 S.W.2d 660 (Tex.Cr.App.1983).
discussed Cited "see" Herring v. State (2×)
Tex. App. · 1988 · signal: see · confidence high
See United States v. Cortez, 449 U.S. 411, 418-419 , 101 S.Ct. 690, 695-696 , 66 L.Ed.2d 621 (1981) and Campbell v. State, 644 S.W.2d 154, 159 (Tex.App.-Austin 1982), pet ref'd, 647 S.W.2d 660 (Tex.Crim.
cited Cited "see" Romero v. State
Tex. App. · 1986 · signal: see · confidence high
See Campbell v. State, 644 S.W.2d 154, 158-59 (Tex.App.—Austin 1982), pet. ref'd per curiam, 647 S.W.2d 660 (Tex.Crim.App.1983).
discussed Cited "see" Plante v. State (2×)
Tex. App. · 1984 · signal: see · confidence high
See Nance v. State, 647 S.W.2d 660 (Tex.Crim.App.1983); Hines v. State, 571 S.W.2d 322 (Tex.Crim.
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Turner v. State (2×)
Tex. Crim. App. · 1988 · signal: see also · confidence low
See also Nance v. State, 647 S.W.2d 660 (Tex.Cr.App.1983); Smith v. State, 646 S.W.2d 452 (Tex.Cr.
Linda CAMPBELL, Appellant,
v.
STATE of Texas, Appellee; And Homer Clifton CAMPBELL, Appellant, v. STATE of Texas, Appellee
107-83, 108-83.
Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
Mar 30, 1983.
647 S.W.2d 660
Stephen M. Orr, Austin, for appellant., Edward J. Walsh, Dist. Atty., and Edgar A. Nooning, III, Asst. Dist. Atty., Georgetown, Robert Huttash, State’s Atty., and Alfred Walker, Asst. State’s Atty., Austin, for the State.
Per Curiam.
Cited by 13 opinions  |  Published

OPINION ON APPELLANTS’ PETITIONS FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW

PER CURIAM.

Appellants were convicted of the offense of aggravated robbery, and punishment was assessed at imprisonment for 30 years. The Court of Appeals affirmed. Campbell v. State, 644 S.W.2d 154 (Tex.App.—Austin, 1982).

We agree with the Court of Appeals that Appellants’ convictions should be affirmed. Accordingly, Appellants’ petitions for discretionary review will be refused. As is true in every case, refusal of discretionary review by this Court does not constitute an endorsement or adoption of the reasoning employed by the Court of Appeals.

Appellants’ petitions for discretionary review are refused.

IT IS SO ORDERED this 30th day of March, 1983.