Skip to main content

Jordan v. State

Citations

  • 256 S.W.3d 286
  • 2008 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 753
  • 2008 WL 2437672

How courts have described this case

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

  • reasoning that it is not possible to quantify impact of incorrectly enhanced sentencing range on normative sentencing function of judge or jury
  • explaining that “the legislative purpose behind the habitual felony-enhancement statute is to punish more harshly persons who repeatedly commit crimes”
  • finding that enhancement paragraph is true is subject to legal sufficiency review
  • finding that enhancement paragraph is true is subject to legal sufficiency review
  • finding that enhancement paragraph is true is subject to legal sufficiency review
  • noting that an error which “affect[s] the framework within which the trial proceeds, rather than simply an error in the trial process itself” and “render[s] a trial fundamentally unfair” is “structural error” which is not amenable to a harm analysis

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

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

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

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

Cites

33 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.