Ex Parte Montgomery’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

7 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 12 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “The law is clear that in prosecutions under Sec. 12.42 the same prior conviction cannot be used to enhance a defendant’s punishment to life as an habitual criminal in two separate cases. See Carvajal v. State, 529 S.W.2d 517 (Tex.Cr.App.1975); Ex parte Friday, 545 S.W.2d 182 (Tex.Cr.App.1977); Gooden v. State, 140 Tex.Cr.R. 351 , 145 S.W.2d 179 (1940). It is the general rule that a prior conviction cannot be used twice for enhancement purposes in any two cases. See Shaw v. State, 530 S.W.2d 838 (Tex.Cr.App.1976); Ex parte White, 538 S.W.2d 417 (Tex.Cr.App.1976); Rollins v. State, 542 S.W.2d 163 (Tex.Cr.App.1976); Miller v. State, 139 Tex.Cr.R. 406 , 140 S.W.2d 859 (1940); Cothren v. State, 139 Tex.Cr.R. 339 , 140 S.W.2d 860 (1940); Kinney v. State, 45 Tex.Cr.R. 500 , 79 S.W. 570 (1904). This general rule is subject to the exception that the use of a prior conviction to enhance the punishment as a second offender does not preclude the State from again using that conviction to affix the status of a habitual criminal. See Ex parte White, supra; Ex parte Calloway, 151 Tex.Cr.R. 90 , 205 S.W.2d 583 (1947); Mayo v. State, 166 Tex.Cr.R. 470 , 314 S.W.2d 834 (1957); Head v. State, 419 S.W.2d 375 (Tex.Cr.App.1967); Cleveland v. State, 493 S.W.2d 145 (Tex.Cr.App.1973). A review of all the above-mentioned cases indicates that if a prior conviction is used successfully, it cannot be used for enhancement again, unless the State uses it for the purposes of showing appellant to be a habitua”

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