Vasquez v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

55 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 55 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““It is well settled that a conviction which occurred prior to the enactment of a statute providing for increased punishment upon a subsequent conviction may be used for enhancement purposes under that statute, and that such usage is not unconstitutional as being an ex post facto application of the statute, [numerous citations omitted]. “In Hill v. State, 158 Tex.Cr.R. 313 , 256 S.W.2d 93 (1953) (opinion by Morrison, J.), this Court held that an amendment to a statute which provided for increased penalties upon a second conviction did not increase the punishment for the offense and therefore it could not be an ex post facto law. However, in dictum the court suggested that if the statute had materially increased the punishment, then the utilization of a conviction which occurred before the amendment took effect, for enhancement purposes, would be an ex post facto application. In Gomez v. State, supra, the Court held expressly to the contrary. Judge Morrison, the author of the opinion in Hill v. State, in a concurring opinion in Gomez v. State, supra, at 282 agreed with the holding of the Court, citing numerous authorities from other jurisdictions in support thereof and concluded that the rule as announced by the Court in Gomez was the sounder rule. “Any suggestion to the contrary in Hill v. State, supra, is expressly overruled. The holding in Gomez v. State, 162 Tex.Cr.R. 30 , 280 S.W.2d 278 (1955) is controlling and will be followed by this Court. “The reason that a conviction”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Bond v. State · Scott v. State

2. “It is well settled that a conviction which occurred prior to the enactment of a statute providing for increased punishment upon a subsequent conviction may be used for enhancement purposes under that statute, and that such usage is not unconstitutional as being an ex post facto application of the statute.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Barnes v. State · Scott v. State

3. ““THE COURT: Now, Mr. Brown, I advise you that the charge of robbery by assault with firearms of which you are indicted carries a punishment of any number of years in the Texas Department of Corrections, not less than five, that’s the possible punishment you can receive in this case, do you understand that? “MR. BROWN: Yes, sir.” “THE COURT: You are not doing this [pleading guilty] because anyone promised you anything? “MR. BROWN: No, sir.””

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