11 King Center Corp. v. City of Middletown

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• noting that Beasley is “a plurality opinion construing an iteration of Article 37.07 that was more narrowly drafted than the present law”
• stating that “[d]eciding what punishment to assess is a normative process, not intrinsically factbound” (quoting Murphy v. State, 777 S.W.2d 44, 63 (Tex. Crim. App. 1988) (plurality op. on reh’g
• noting that prosecution called “an experienced detective specializing in gang activity” to testify about gang crime and offer opinion based on photographs of defendant that he held himself out to the public as a member of some gang
• stating evidence a defendant is an active member of a gang that regularly engages in criminal activity “is almost always relevant for sentencing purposes”
• stating prosecution “must make some showing of the group’s violent or illegal activities” for membership to be relevant to sentencing
• a trial judge might reasonably conclude that “if a person glorifies a certain lifestyle, he is likelier to want to participate in that lifestyle.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).