Skip to main content

Hood v. State

Citations

  • 185 S.W.3d 445
  • 2006 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 13
  • 2006 WL 119883

How courts have described this case

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

  • holding that State had rebutted presumption of prosecutorial vindictiveness because trial court was entitled to believe assertion that State had mistakenly omitted enhancement paragraphs
  • holding that prosecutor’s explanation that enhancement paragraphs were added to a new indictment because their absence was an oversight was an objective explanation that rebutted any presumption of vindictiveness
  • holding State rebutted prosecutorial vindictiveness presumption because trial court was entitled to believe State’s assertion that it had mistakenly omitted enhancement paragraphs
  • deciding “that a ‘mistake or oversight’ explanation is an ‘objective explanation’ that may be sufficient to rebut a presumption of prosecutorial vindictiveness especially when as here, a prosecutor does not merely deny his state of mind was motivated by vindictiveness”
  • “In the instant case, there is a presumption of prosecutorial vindictiveness because the defendant was convicted, he successfully appealed, and the State thereafter filed additional enhancements.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

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

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

20 cases in this archive cite this case.

Cites

29 cases in this archive are cited by this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

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.