Froyd v. State

How courts have described this case

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

• accused, when represented by attorney, could not require trial court to consider pro se pre-trial motion to record voir dire and final arguments

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Cited by

8 cases in this archive cite this case.

• Robinson v. State
  Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas· 2007-11-21· cited 472×
• Meyer v. State
  Tex. App. Ct., 10th Dist. (Waco)· 2000-08-30· cited 75×
• Hazelwood v. State
  Tex. App. Ct., 13th Dist.· 1992-07-30· cited 29×
• Froyd v. State
  Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas· 1982-06-02· cited 23×
• Soto v. State
  Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas· 1984-06-20· cited 16×
• Froyd v. State
  Court of Appeals of Texas· 1983-03-10· cited 2×
• Julius Drew, Jr. v. State
  Tex. App. Ct., 3rd Dist. (Austin)· 1995-03-15
• Robinson, Elmer Ray
  Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas· 2007-11-21

Cites

7 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

• Faretta v. California
  Supreme Court· 1975-06-30· cited 11,585×
• Gideon v. Wainwright
  Supreme Court· 1963-03-18· cited 8,419×
• Webb v. State
  Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas· 1976-02-25· cited 405×
• Landers v. State
  Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas· 1977-04-20· cited 213×
• Phillips v. State
  Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas· 1979-11-21· cited 48×
• Gamble v. State
  Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas· 1979-12-12· cited 32×
• Cartwright v. State
  Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas· 1975-09-17· cited 31×