Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 463 SW3D 890 - Smith, Fredrichee Douglas

Smith, Fredrichee Douglas’s Empirical Analysis

2015

Citation profile

17
cited by 17 later decisions
1
states following
March 2019
most recently cited

17 state decisions

Appellate journey

reviewedthe decision below (from Texas Court of Appeals, 14th District (Houston))

Relationships

Relies on Faretta v. California · Roper Superintendent Potosi Correctional Center v. Simmons · Relford v. Commandant, U. S. Disciplinary Barracks · Rose v. State · Marin v. State

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

  1. “A category-one 'absolute requirement and prohibition' right includes the right to be free from the enforcement of a statute that has been declared unconstitutional and void.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “I believe that whether a particular claim falls within one Marin category or another should not be made to depend upon when that claim is recognized to be valid. Instead, it should simply depend upon the nature of the claim itself-does it seek to vindicate an interest that is so indispensable to the correct operation of the criminal justice system that its enforcement is not even optional with the parties. Marin , 851 S.W.2d at 280 . For essentially the reasons that Judge Cochran developed in her concurring opinion in Karenev , I would hold that an appellant's claim that his conviction and punishment cannot stand because they are based upon a facially unconstitutional penal provision is patently a Marin -category-one type of claim from its inception , regardless of whether it has yet been recognized and validated by an appellate court. Such a claim may be raised for the first time, and should be addressed on the merits, on appeal. * * * If the nature of the claim is such that it truly falls within the first category of Marin , it may be vindicated for the first time on collateral attack, in post-conviction habeas corpus proceedings. Ex parte Moss , 446 S.W.3d 786 , 788-89 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014).”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
  3. “consequence of declaring a penal statute unconstitutional and void is to put a conviction pursuant to that statute into the Marin 'category one'-an absolute right or legal requirement that is so fundamental that it cannot be forfeited or waived by those complaining thereafter.”
    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.