Skip to main content

Jones v. State

Citations

  • 323 S.W.3d 885
  • 2010 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 1208
  • 2010 WL 3766654

How courts have described this case

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

  • concluding that each \materially false or misleading statement\ constitutes separate unit of prosecution under Penal Code section 32.32, statute proscribing making false statement to obtain property or credit
  • observing that whether statutory construction occurs in context of analyzing double jeopardy claim or another context, \the issue is the same: the meaning of the statute\
  • noting that absent an explicit statutory statement as to the allowable unit of prosecution, the best indicator of legislative intent regarding the unit of prosecution is the gravamen of the offense
  • explaining that the “current penal code robbery offenses are assaultive in nature”
  • noting singularity of direct object in statute proscribing making \a false or misleading written statement\ to obtain property or credit, and concluding that each statement made constitutes separate unit of prosecution
  • each false statement held to be the unit of prosecution, so that three false statements in a single loan application constituted three crimes

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

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

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

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

Cites

30 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.