McClinton v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

15 state decisions

Most-quoted passages

The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 15 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “[A] trial court does not have the statutory authority to impose one sentence orally to the defendant and then, at some later date, enter a different, greater or lesser, sentence in his written judgment outside the defendant’s or State’s presence. Such a system would create havoc: a trial judge could orally pronounce sentence in open court while the defendant and his family and friends, a possible victim and his family and friends, and the prosecutor are all present, then later modify, alter, or amend that sentence when no one else was present to object.... Such a system would be unfair to both parties and to society at large. Such a system would inject an intolerable level of uncertainty into the sentencing process and would prevent any sentence from becoming “final” until the trial court’s plenary authority had expired.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
   e.g. State v. Davis

2. “A trial court has the inherent authority to alter, modify, or vacate its rulings, but it does not have the inherent authority to alter, modify, or vacate a sentence imposed in open court without statutory authorization and without the presence of the parties.” McClinton, 121 S.W.3d at 771 (Cochran, J., concurring). 7 . As recognized by the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, the denial of the right to self-representation is considered”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
   e.g. Bansal v. State

3. “Under the civil appellate rules, this court would not be authorized to grant the State relief because the State did not file a notice of appeal. Tex.R.App. P. 25.1(c). However, the criminal analog has no such provision. See Tex.R.App. P. 25.2(a).”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
   e.g. Norris Shannon Baines v. State