Ex Parte Cavazos’s Empirical Analysis
2006
Citation profile
59 state decisions
Appellate journey
reviewedthe decision below (from Texas 139th Judicial District Court)
Relationships
Relies on North Carolina v. Pearce · Brown v. Ohio · Alabama v. Smith · Ball v. United States · Sanabria v. United States
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 59 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The allowable unit of prosecution for an assaultive offense is each complainant. Burglary, however, is not an assaultive offense; rather, its placement within Title 7 [of the Texas Penal Code] indicates that the legislature determined burglary to be a crime against property. Thus, the complainant is not the appropriate allowable unit of prosecution in a burglary, rather, the allowable unit of prosecution in a burglary is the unlawful entry. Applicant’s convictions [for burglary with intent to commit theft and burglary with intent to commit sexual assault, each count naming a different victim] violate double jeopardy because he was punished multiple times for a single unlawful entry.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Byrd v. State“Some of our case law suggests that, all other factors being equal, the conviction that should be affirmed is the offense named in the first verdict form. See, e.g., Ex parte Cravens, 805 S.W.2d 790 (Tex.Crim.App.1991); McIntire v. State, 698 S.W.2d 652 (Tex.Crim.App.1985); Ex parte Siller, 686 S.W.2d 617 (Tex.Crim.App.1985). Generally, this will be the offense described in Count I of the indictment. We do not address that question today.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Williams v. State“The Double Jeopardy Clause of the United States Constitution provides that no person shall be subjected to twice having life or limb in jeopardy for the same offense. U.S. Const, amend. Y. Generally, this clause protects against (1) a second prosecution for the same offense after acquittal, (2) a second prosecution for the same offense after conviction, and (8) multiple punishments for the same offense.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.