Espinosa v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

14 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 16 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “[G]ood conduct time is an important aspect of both mandatory supervision and parole. In the context of mandatory supervision, good conduct time is perhaps a more decisive factor because it is part of the equation used in calculating the release date. Parole, on the other hand, is discretionary and is not computed according to a formula. However, the accumulation of good conduct time is nevertheless an important consideration when deciding whether an inmate should be released on parole, ie., if an inmate’s misconduct has resulted in the loss of good conduct time, he is ineligible for parole for at least six months.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Felan v. State · Phat Van Bui v. State

2. “(1) Other than on initial parole eligibility, the person must not have had a major disciplinary misconduct report in the six-month period prior to the date he is reviewed for parole; which has resulted in loss of good conduct time or reduction to a classification status below that assigned during that person’s initial entry into TDCJ ID.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Felan v. State

3. “not to consider” instruction. Espinosa v. State, 29 S.W.3d 257, 261 (Tex.App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2000, pet. ref’d) (“we do not find the charge so misleading as to have denied appellant his right to due process and due course of law.”); Cagle v. State, 23 S.W.3d 590, 594 (Tex.App.—Fort Worth 2000, pet. filed) (”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Gilmore v. State