Wright v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1971
Citation profile
24 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 24 later decisions — most recently October 2006
24 state decisions
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
Relationships
Relies on 137 Tex. Crim. 256 - Barfield v. State · 89 Tex. Crim. 287 - Guyon v. State · 91 Tex. Crim. 234 - Thompson v. State · 172 Tex. Crim. 449 - Goodrum v. State · Hasley 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 24 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Appellant also advances the rather unique contention that if no evidence is offered at the penalty stage of the bifurcated trial ..., the court may not assess the punishment in excess of the minimum penalty set by law for the offense for which the defendant has been convicted ... We have no authorities so holding and do not interpret our statutes to compel such an unrealistic result. It is not mandatory that the State offer evidence at the separate hearing on punishment. [In Morales v. State, 416 S.W.2d 436 , (Tex.Crim.App.1967) ] it was expressly held that a defendant convicted of robbery could be assessed a term in excess of the minimum legal penalty although no separate hearing was conducted on the question of punishment.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Urbano v. State
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.