Tamez v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1981
Citation profile
26 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 26 later decisions — most recently June 2016 · most notably Asberry v. State (1991), Ex Parte Williams (1986)
26 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 North Carolina v. Pearce · Houlihan v. State · Ex Parte March · Ex Parte Griffith · Knight 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 26 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“"For the purposes of this section, the jurisdiction of a court in which a sentence requiring confinement in the Texas Department of Corrections is imposed for conviction (of a felony) shall continue for 180 days from the date the execution of the sentence actually begins. After the expiration of 60 days but prior to the expiration of 180 days from the date the execution of the sentence actually begins, the judge of the court that imposed such sentence may on his own motion or on written motion of the defendant, suspend further execution of the sentence imposed and place the defendant on probation under the terms and conditions of this article, if in the opinion of the judge the defendant would not benefit from further incarceration in a penitentiary. Probation may be granted under this section only if: (1) the defendant is otherwise eligible for probation under this article; and (2) the defendant had never before been incarcerated in a penitentiary serving a sentence for a felony; and (3) the offense for which the defendant was convicted was other than those defined by Section 19.02, 20.04, 21.03, 21.05, 22.03, 22.04(a)(1), (2), or (3), 29.03, 36.02, 38.07, 71.02 or a felony of the second degree under Section 38.10, Penal Code."”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage““Some confusion may exist between the requirement of Article 42.12, Sec. 3, V.A. C.C.P., that in granting probation the court should suspend the imposition of the sentence, and the specific requirement of Sec. 3e(a) relating to ‘shock probation’ that the court shall suspend the ‘further execution of the sentence imposed . ... ””
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. O'HARA v. State“since a defendant granted ‘shock probation’ would be in the Department of Corrections under sentence when the motion for probation is considered.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Smith 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.