Russell v. State, 702 S.W.2d 617 (Tex. Crim. App. 1985). · Go Syfert
Search
Russell v. State, 702 S.W.2d 617 (Tex. Crim. App. 1985). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
37 citation events (7 in the last 25 years) across 2 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Jesus Perez Gutierrez v. State (texapp, 2009-09-24)
Treatment trajectory · 1986 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1986 2006 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 22 distinct citers.
cited Cited as authority (rule) Jesus Perez Gutierrez v. State
Tex. App. · 2009 · confidence medium
App. 1999); Russell v. State , 702 S.W.2d 617, 618 (Tex. Crim.
cited Cited as authority (rule) Jesus Perez Gutierrez v. State
Tex. App. · 2009 · confidence medium
App. 1999); Russell v. State, 702 S.W.2d 617, 618 (Tex. Crim.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Hogans v. State (2×)
Tex. Crim. App. · 2005 · confidence medium
Shields v. State, 608 S.W.2d 924, 925 (Tex.Crim.App.1980)(dzcta: "proceedings”); McDougal v. State, 610 S.W.2d 509, 509 (Tex.Crim.App.1981)(dicfa: "decision”); Daniels, 615 S.W.2d 771, 771 (Tex.Crim.App.l981)(sufficiency of the evidence claim: "hearing”); Contreras v. State, 645 S.W.2d 298, 298 (Tex.Crim.App.1983)(refusing petition for discretionary review with summary statement that court of appeals did not have jurisdiction over the appeal, grounds for appeal not revealed in the opinion); Rus sell v. State, 702 S.W.2d 617, 618 (Tex.Crim.App.1985)(grounds concerning revocation of probat…
cited Cited as authority (rule) Davalos, Christopher v. State
Tex. App. · 2003 · confidence medium
App. 1992); Russell v. State , 702 S.W.2d 617, 618 (Tex. Crim .
cited Cited as authority (rule) Lopez, Michael v. State
Tex. App. · 2000 · confidence medium
App. 1992); Russell v. State , 702 S.W.2d 617, 618 (Tex. Crim.
cited Cited as authority (rule) Charles Edward Harris v. State
Tex. App. · 2000 · confidence medium
App. 1992); Russell v. State , 702 S.W.2d 617, 618 (Tex. Crim.
cited Cited as authority (rule) Tatum, Melva Sue v. State
Tex. App. · 2000 · confidence medium
App. 1992); Russell v. State , 702 S.W.2d 617, 618 (Tex. Crim.
cited Cited as authority (rule) Perez, Sr., Michael Anthony v. State
Tex. App. · 1999 · confidence medium
App. 1992); Russell v. State , 702 S.W.2d 617, 618 (Tex. Crim.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Jarour v. State
Tex. App. · 1996 · confidence medium
Tex.Code CRIM.PROcAnn. art. 42.12, § 5(b) (Vernon Supp.1996); Phynes v. State, 828 S.W.2d 1, 2 (Tex.Crim.App.1992); Russell v. State, 702 S.W.2d 617, 618 (Tex.Crim.App.1985), cer t. denied, 479 U.S. 885 , 107 S.Ct. 277 , 93 L.Ed.2d 253 (1986).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Lindsey v. State
Tex. App. · 1995 · confidence medium
Phynes v. State, 828 S.W.2d 1, 2 (Tex.Crim.App.1992); Olowosuko v. State, 826 S.W.2d 940, 942 (Tex.Crim.App.1992); Russell v. State, 702 S.W.2d 617, 618 (Tex.Crim.App.1985).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Cole v. State (2×)
Tex. App. · 1995 · confidence medium
ProcANN. art. 42.12, § 5(b) (Vernon Supp. 1995); Russell v. State, 685 S.W.2d 413, 417 (Tex.App.—San Antonio), aff'd, 702 S.W.2d 617, 618 (Tex.Crim.App.1985), cert. denied, 479 U.S. 885 , 107 S.Ct. 277 , 93 L.Ed.2d 253 (1986).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Gilbert v. State
Tex. App. · 1993 · confidence medium
Tex.Crim.Proc.Code Ann. art. 42.12, § 5(b); Olowosuko v. State, 826 S.W.2d 940, 942 (Tex.Crim.App.1992); Russell v. State, 702 S.W.2d 617, 618 (Tex.Crim.App.1985).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Osborne v. State
Tex. App. · 1993 · confidence medium
Russell v. State, 702 S.W.2d 617, 618 (Tex.Crim.App.1985).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Goins v. State
Tex. App. · 1992 · confidence medium
Castro v. State, 807 S.W.2d 417, 419 (Tex.App. — Houston [14th Dist.] 1991, pet. ref’d); Ex parte Hernandez, 705 S.W.2d 700, 702 (Tex.Crim.App.1986) (en banc) (“settled is the proposition that one may not appeal from a determination to proceed with an adjudication of guilt under Article 42.12 sec. 3d(b) [now num *735 bered Article 42.12 sec. 5]”); Russell v. State, 702 S.W.2d 617, 618 (Tex.Crim.App. 1985), cert denied, 479 U.S. 885 , 107 S.Ct. 277 , 93 L.Ed.2d 253 (1986); Contreras v. State, 645 S.W.2d 298 (Tex.Crim.App.1983) (en banc); Daniels v. State, 615 S.W.2d 771 (Tex.Crim.App.19…
cited Cited as authority (rule) Garza v. State
Tex. App. · 1991 · confidence medium
Russell v. State, 702 S.W.2d 617, 618 (Tex.Crim.App.1985); DeLeon, 797 S.W.2d at 187-188 .
cited Cited as authority (rule) De Leon v. State
Tex. App. · 1990 · confidence medium
Russell v. State, 702 S.W.2d 617, 618 (Tex.Crim.
cited Cited as authority (rule) Mayers v. State
Tex. App. · 1987 · confidence medium
Russell v. State, 702 S.W.2d 617, 618 (Tex.Crim.App.1985); Daniels v. State, 615 S.W.2d 771, 771 (Tex.Crim.App.1981); Fielding v. State, 719 S.W.2d 361, 363 (Tex.App.—Dallas 1986, no pet.).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Homan v. Hughes (2×)
Tex. Crim. App. · 1986 · confidence medium
After an adjudication of guilt, all proceedings, including assessment of punishment, pronouncement of sentence, granting of probation, and defendant’s appeal continue as if the adjudication of guilt had not been deferred.” (Emphasis added.) It is clear then that no appeal may be taken from a hearing in which the trial court revokes probation and determines to proceed with an adjudication of guilt under said § 3d(b), supra. Russell v. State, 702 S.W.2d 617, 618 (Tex.Cr.App.1985); Contreras v. State, 645 S.W.2d 298 (Tex.Cr.App.1983); Richardson v. State, 617 S.W.2d 267 (Tex.Cr.App.1981); Da…
discussed Cited "see" Tony Anthony Johnson v. State (2×)
Tex. App. · 1996 · signal: see · confidence high
See Russell v. State , 702 S.W.2d 617 (Tex.Cr.App. 1985); Article 42.12, § 5(b), supra .
discussed Cited "see" Reagan v. State
Tex. App. · 1992 · signal: see · confidence high
See Russell v. State, 702 S.W.2d 617, 618 (Tex.Crim.App.1985); Daniels v. State, 615 S.W.2d 771, 773 (Tex.Crim.App.1981); Garza v. State, 815 S.W.2d 832, 832-33 (Tex.App.-Corpus Christi 1991, no pet.); Castro v. State, 807 S.W.2d 417, 419 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 1991, pet. ref d).
discussed Cited "see" Olowosuko v. State (2×)
Tex. Crim. App. · 1992 · signal: see · confidence high
See Russell v. State, 702 S.W.2d 617 (Tex.Cr.App.1985); Article 42.12, § 5(b), supra. Therefore, in this cause the Dallas Court of Appeals correctly dismissed all points of error presented by appellant, although its decision in Dillehey, supra, has since been disapproved by this Court.
discussed Cited "see" Wienbrink v. State
Tex. App. · 1992 · signal: see · confidence high
See Russell v. State, 702 S.W.2d 617, 618 (Tex.Crim.App.1985); Daniels v. State, 615 S.W.2d 771, 773 (Tex.Crim.App.1981); Garza v. State, 815 S.W.2d 832, 832-33 (Tex.App.—Corpus Christi 1991, no pet.); Castro v. State, 807 S.W.2d 417, 419 (Tex.App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1991, pet. ref’d).
Richard RUSSELL, Appellant,
v.
the STATE of Texas, Appellee
256-85.
Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
Oct 16, 1985.
702 S.W.2d 617
Gerald H. Goldstein, Mark Stevens, San Antonio, for appellant., Sam D. Millsap, Jr., Dist. Atty., and Dick Ryman & Linda C. Anderson, Asst. Dist. Attys., San Antonio, Robert Huttash, State’s Atty., Austin, for the State.
Davis, White.
Cited by 41 opinions  |  Published

OPINION ON APPELLANT’S PETITION FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW

PER CURIAM.

Appeal is taken from an order revoking probation. On May 18, 1983, appellant en[*618] tered a plea of nolo contendere to the offense of aggravated promotion of prostitution. After hearing the evidence and finding that it substantiated appellant’s guilt, the court deferred further proceedings without entering an adjudication of guilt and placed appellant on probation for a period of 6 years. On October 20,1983, the trial court revoked appellant’s probation and entered an adjudication of guilt after finding that appellant had violated the conditions of his probation. Punishment was assessed at six years and a $5,000.00 fine.

Appellant appealed from the hearing in which the trial court revoked his probation and entered an adjudication of guilt. The Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment of the trial court. Russell v. State, 685 S.W.2d 413 (Tex.App.—San Antonio, 1985).

In his petition for discretionary review, appellant raises a number of grounds for review concerning the revocation of his probation and entry of an adjudication of guilt. As noted by the Court of Appeals, no appeal may be taken from the hearing in which the trial court determines to proceed with an adjudication of guilt on the original charge. Daniels v. State, 615 S.W.2d 771 (Tex.Cr.App.1981); Wright v. State, 592 S.W.2d 604 (Tex.Cr.App.1980). Under such circumstances, there was no need for the Court of Appeals to address the grounds of error presented by appellant with respect to the revocation hearing.

Appellant’s petition for discretionary review is refused and the judgment of the Court of Appeals is affirmed.

TOM G. DAVIS and WHITE, JJ., not participating.