Sec. 3.02. CONSOLIDATION AND JOINDER OF PROSECUTIONS. (a) A defendant may be prosecuted in a single criminal action for all offenses arising out of the same criminal episode.
(b) When a single criminal action is based on more than one charging instrument within the jurisdiction of the trial court, the state shall file written notice of the action not less than 30 days prior to the trial.
(c) If a judgment of guilt is reversed, set aside, or vacated, and a new trial ordered, the state may not prosecute in a single criminal action in the new trial any offense not joined in the former prosecution unless evidence to establish probable guilt for that offense was not known to the appropriate prosecuting official at the time the first prosecution commenced.
Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, Sec. 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974. Amended by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, Sec. 1.01, eff. Sept. 1, 1994.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
199
cases (
30 in the last 5 years), 1982–2026 · leading case:
Cox, Gilmore Franklin, 482 S.W.3d 112 (Tex. Crim. App. 2016).
Cox, Gilmore Franklin, 482 S.W.3d 112 (Tex. Crim. App. 2016).
· cites it 3× “03 (defendant’s right to mandatory concurrent sentences for offenses consolidated under Texas Penal Code § 3.02) in combination with the provisions of Texas Penal Code § 3.”
Trevino v. State, 228 S.W.3d 729 (Tex. App. 2006).
· cites it 6× “SEVERANCE In his first issue, Trevino contends the trial court erred in denying his motion to sever.”
Mallett v. State, 65 S.W.3d 59 (Tex. Crim. App. 2001).
· cites it 2× “[30] Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 3.02 (Vernon 1997).”
Williams v. State, 253 S.W.3d 673 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008).
· cites it 2× “Second, Appellant argues that although the State used the wrong section to join all of the offenses for one trial, the language of Texas Penal Code § 3.02 and Texas Health and Safety Code § 481.”
Hawkins v. State, 112 S.W.3d 340 (Tex. App. 2003).
“See Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 3.02 (Vernon 1994).”
Casey v. State, 349 S.W.3d 825 (Tex. App. 2011).
· cites it 2× “” Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 3.02 (a) (West 2011).”
Garcia v. State, 981 S.W.2d 683 (Tex. Crim. App. 1998).
· cites it 2× “See Tex. Penal Code § 3.02. Shortly before trial began, appellant filed written motions in the District Court excepting to the form of the indictments and asking that they be quashed.”
Lane v. State, 174 S.W.3d 376 (Tex. App. 2005).
· cites it 2× “Generally, a defendant is entitled to severance if he timely objects to the joinder.”
Gonzales v. State, 191 S.W.3d 741 (Tex. App. 2006).
· cites it 2× “But now we know which one this jury unanimously agreed upon because the majority tells us. That is the jury's decision, not this Court's.”
United States v. Carlos Garcia, 962 F.2d 479 (5th Cir. 1992).
· cites it 2× “Tex.Penal Code § 3.02(a). Section 3.01, as amended in 1987, defines criminal episode as “the commission of two or more offenses .”
Dale v. State, 170 S.W.3d 797 (Tex. App. 2005).
“ref'd); see Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 3.02 (a) (Vernon 2003).”
Silva v. State, 831 S.W.2d 819 (Tex. App. 1992).
· cites it 4× “Texas Penal Code section 3.02 provides that a defendant may be prosecuted in a single action for all offenses arising out of the same criminal episode.”
— Tex. Penal Code § 3.02(2) — 1 case
— Tex. Penal Code § 3.02(a) — 70 cases
Trevino v. State, 228 S.W.3d 729 (Tex. App. 2006).
“SEVERANCE In his first issue, Trevino contends the trial court erred in denying his motion to sever.”
Gonzales v. State, 191 S.W.3d 741 (Tex. App. 2006).
“But now we know which one this jury unanimously agreed upon because the majority tells us. That is the jury's decision, not this Court's.”
Casey v. State, 349 S.W.3d 825 (Tex. App. 2011).
“” Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 3.02 (a) (West 2011).”
— Tex. Penal Code § 3.02(b) — 16 cases
United States v. Carlos Garcia, 962 F.2d 479 (5th Cir. 1992).
“Tex.Penal Code § 3.02(a). Section 3.01, as amended in 1987, defines criminal episode as “the commission of two or more offenses .”
Silva v. State, 831 S.W.2d 819 (Tex. App. 1992).
“Texas Penal Code section 3.02 provides that a defendant may be prosecuted in a single action for all offenses arising out of the same criminal episode.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.