Skip to main content

Burt, Lemuel Carl

Citations

  • 396 S.W.3d 574
  • 2013 WL 1628985
  • 2013 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 704

How courts have described this case

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

  • noting that an appellant may raise a sentencing issue in a motion for new trial for the first time only if he did not have the opportunity to object in the punishment hearing
  • holding that sentencing issue is preserved by 12 Because we conclude that no error exists in the jury charge, we need not reach appellant’s claim that he suffered harm. See Celis v. State, 416 S.W.3d 419, 423 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013
  • holding that in some instances, a defendant may preserve a sentencing issue by raising it in a motion for new trial and noting, “[t]he requirement that an objection be raised in the trial court assumes that the appellant had the opportunity to raise it there”
  • noting that an appellant may raise a sentencing issue in a motion for new trial for the first time if he did not have the opportunity to object in the punishment hearing
  • stating “[a]n appellant fails to preserve error by failing to object when he had the opportunity”
  • stating “[a]n appellant fails to preserve error by failing to object when he had the opportunity”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Alcala, Cochran, Hervey, Johnson, Keasler, Keller, Meyers, Price, Womack

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

141 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Cites

18 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

Other cases named Burt, Lemuel Carl

5 other CourtListener records share this case name.

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.