Pelache v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

2 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 2 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “count” in the indictment. 8 . At this time, with the enhancement "count” in the indictment having alleged a prior September 5, 2000 aggravated-robbery conviction, appellant was subject to a third-degree-felony punishment range of two to ten years and a possible fine not to exceed $10,000. See § 31.03(e)(4)(B) (providing that theft from a person is a state-jail felony); § 12.35(c)(2)(A), Tex. Penal Code (providing that a person convicted of a state-jail felony shall be punished for a third-degree felony if the person has previously been convicted of a § 3g(a)(l) offense under Article 42.12 of the Code of Criminal Procedure); Article 42.12, § 3g(a)(l)(F), Tex.Code Crim. Proc. (making aggravated robbery a § 3g(a)(l) offense). 9 . The record reflects that the state-jail felony conviction for possession of a controlled substance was ultimately not used to enhance appellant's punishment. 10 . The record reflects that the cause number for this aggravated-robbery conviction was 00-CR-523-D. This was also the cause number of the conviction alleged in the enhancement “count”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent
   e.g. Pelache v. State

2. “1. Did the appellant properly preserve error in failing to object to the motion to enhance punishment on the grounds of due process? 2. Did the court of appeals correctly hold that appellant’s due process rights were violated when the State filed a motion to enhance punishment two days before the punishment phase of trial? 17”

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