Barrow v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

27 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 27 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “It is well established that the constitutional right to a jury trial does not encompass the right to have the jury assess punishment. Texas is one of the few states that allow defendants the privilege, by statute, of opting for jury assessment of punishment. Even so, it is left to the trial court to determine whether multiple sentences will run consecutively or concurrently. As the court of appeals pointed out, the Texas Legislature has assigned the decision to cu-mulate, vel non, in Section 3.03 of the Penal Code and Article J/Z.08 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, to the trial court. It is also clear from these provisions that the decision whether to cumu-late does not turn on any discrete or particular findings of fact on the judge’s part. Instead, cumulating is purely a normative decision, much like the decision of what particular sentence to impose within the range of punishment authorized by the jury’s verdict. As such, it does not infringe upon the Sixth Amendment guarantee of a jury trial.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Alameda v. State

2. “§ 3.03. Sentences for Offenses Arising Out of Same Criminal Episode (a) When the accused is found guilty of more than one offense arising out of the same criminal episode prosecuted in a single criminal action, a sentence for each offense for which he has been found guilty shall be pronounced. Except as provided by Subsection (b), the sentences shall run concurrently. (b) If the accused is found guilty of more than one offense arising out of the same criminal episode, the sentences may ran concurrently or consecutively if each sentence is for a conviction of: [certain enumerated offenses, including § 22.021, Aggravated Sexual Assault, at issue in both Barrow and the present case],”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Alameda v. State

3. “Unlike Article 42.08 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the language of 3.03(b) does not explicitly vest the trial court with the right to decide whether sentences will run consecutively or concurrently. Rather, Section 3.03 provides that when an accused is found guilty of more than one offense arising out of the same criminal episode, and the offenses are violations of Section 22.011 of the Penal Code committed against a victim younger than 17 years old, the sentences may run consecutively or concurrently. The statute does not address who makes the decision, or if the grant of discretion to the trial judge is proper if the jury is the finder of fact at punishment.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Alameda v. State