Skip to main content

Glaze v. State

Citations

  • 675 S.W.2d 768
  • 1984 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 761

How courts have described this case

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

  • concluding that neither Court of Criminal Appeals nor court of appeals had jurisdiction over appeal because there was no final conviction
  • holding that neither court of appeals nor court of criminal appeals has jurisdiction to consider merits of case unless there is a conviction from which to appeal
  • holding that neither court of appeals nor court of criminal appeals has jurisdiction to consider merits of case unless there is final conviction from which to appeal
  • holding that neither court of appeals nor court of criminal appeals has jurisdiction to consider the merits of a case unless there is a final conviction from which to appeal
  • holding that neither court of appeals nor court of criminal appeals has jurisdiction to consider the merits of a case unless there is a final conviction from which to appeal
  • noting that “since a revocation of probation is a proceeding tried before the court and not before a jury, the trial court is not required even to consider a motion for new trial”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: W.C. Davis

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

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

Cites

6 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

Other cases with this 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.