Woods v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1976
Citation profile
29 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 29 later decisions — most recently December 2017 · most notably McNew v. State (1978), Trevino v. State (1978)
29 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 Bedell v. State · Adams v. State · Faurie v. State · Casias v. State · Herbort 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 29 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““We hold that the time to file a motion for new trial or motion in arrest of judgment does not begin to run so long as an application for probation is pending without determination by the trial court. Stated another way, even though a penalty has been announced, yet an application for probation is under consideration by the trial court, the time for filing a motion for new trial or motion in arrest of judgment does not begin to run until the date the court either grants or denies probation. This is so because ‘a defendant can make no intelligent decision as to whether to file a motion for new trial or motion in arrest of judgment until he knows the punishment that he faces.’ Faurie v. State, 528 S.W.2d [263,] 265 [Tex.Cr.App.1975], “In the instant cases the appellants did not know for sure what their punishments would be (incarceration or probationary supervision) until the date their sentences were formally pronounced, and they were thus precluded from being given the opportunity to file a motion for new trial or motion in arrest of judgment within the time provided by law. Absent a waiver of such time, we conclude that the sentence in each of these cases was prematurely pronounced. We, therefore, conclude that the appeals must be dismissed. “The only remaining question is the posture these cases must assume when they return to the trial court. “It is an abuse of discretion for the trial judge to refuse a defendant his absolute right to file a motion for new trial or motion ”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Middleton v. State““A motion for new trial shall be filed within ten days after conviction as evidenced by the verdict of the jury, and may be amended by leave of the court at any time before it is acted on within twenty days after it is filed. Such mo- ' tion shall be presented to the court within ten days after the filing of the original or amended motion, and shall be, determined by the court within twenty days after the filing of the original or amended motion, but for good cause shown the time for filing or amending may be extended by the court, but shall not delay the filing of the record on appeal. . . .””
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. McIntosh v. State“A sentence, as defined by Art. 42.02, Vernon’s Ann.C.C.C.P. [sic], is required to be pronounced in all cases before an appeal is taken, except in death penalty cases and in probation cases where imposition of sentence is suspended.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Ex Parte Renier
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.