Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas· 11/21/1984
Lerma v. State
Citations
- 679 S.W.2d 488
- 1984 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 802
How courts have described this case
Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.
- “Thus the rule is that if a codefendant has not voiced his own personal objection to the multiple representation arrangement, he is foreclosed from relying on the objection of his codefendant to preserve error.”
- op. and op. on reh’g
Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).
Judges: McCormick, Roberts, Davis, Clinton
Read full opinion on CourtListenerCited by
51 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.
- In the Interest of B.L.D.Court of Appeals of Texas· 2001-07-18· cited 88×
- Gottlich v. StateCourt of Appeals of Texas· 1992-04-22· cited 78×
- Martinez v. StateTex. App. Ct., 5th Dist. (Dallas)· 1992-09-30· cited 73×
- Howard v. StateTex. App. Ct., 3rd Dist. (Austin)· 1998-04-09· cited 53×
- Ex Parte FranklinCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas· 1988-09-21· cited 46×
- Calloway v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas· 1985-09-25· cited 41×
- Romeo Hinojosa v. StateTex. App. Ct., 4th Dist. (San Antonio)· 2014-05-07· cited 41×
- Thompson v. StateTex. App. Ct., 14th Dist. (Houston)· 2002-11-27· cited 39×
- Stephenson v. StateCourt of Appeals of Texas· 2008-03-20· cited 36×
- Pina v. StateTex. App. Ct., 1st Dist. (Houston)· 2003-10-02· cited 23×
- Epps v. StateTex. App. Ct., 13th Dist.· 2000-07-06· cited 17×
- Graham v. StateTex. App. Ct., 9th Dist. (Beaumont)· 1997-07-23· cited 12×
- Hernandez v. StateTex. App. Ct., 9th Dist. (Beaumont)· 1993-09-29· cited 11×
- Tutt v. StateTex. App. Ct., 6th Dist. (Texarkana)· 2011-03-11· cited 10×
- Esparza v. StateCourt of Appeals of Texas· 1987-01-29· cited 9×
- McGuire v. StateCourt of Appeals of Texas· 1986-05-14· cited 7×
- Carlos Zambrano v. StateTex. App. Ct., 4th Dist. (San Antonio)· 2014-03-05· cited 7×
- Calloway v. StateCourt of Appeals of Texas· 1984-05-02· cited 5×
- Calloway v. StateCourt of Appeals of Texas· 1986-04-03· cited 4×
- In Re BLDTex. App. Ct., 10th Dist. (Waco)· 2001-08-08
Cites
19 cases in this archive are cited by this case.
- Glasser v. United StatesSupreme Court· 1942-02-09· cited 10,035×
- Cuyler v. SullivanSupreme Court· 1980-05-12· cited 5,389×
- Holloway v. ArkansasSupreme Court· 1978-04-03· cited 2,478×
- Simpkins v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas· 1979-10-31· cited 177×
- Pollan v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas· 1981-03-11· cited 176×
- William Foxworth v. Louie L. Wainwright, Director, Division of CorrectionsFifth Circuit· 1975-08-01· cited 133×
- Hurley v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas· 1980-10-01· cited 60×
- United States v. Raquel N. Medel, and Rogelio M. MedelFifth Circuit· 1979-05-30· cited 58×
- United States v. Richard MariSecond Circuit· 1975-11-25· cited 55×
- Stewart v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas· 1976-02-04· cited 40×
- Ruiz v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas· 1975-06-11· cited 38×
- Ex Parte ParhamCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas· 1981-02-04· cited 31×
- Ex Parte AlanizCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas· 1979-03-28· cited 31×
- United States of America, Ex Rel. Orris Ballard, Lawrence Ballard, Serge Gaudry v. Paul Bengston, Sheriff of Winnebago CountySeventh Circuit· 1983-03-18· cited 27×
- Donald Smith v. Charles E. AndersonSixth Circuit· 1982-09-13· cited 26×
- United States v. Lee McComas Ramsey, United States of America v. Cecil Zedrick Ramsey, United States of America v. Sharon WrayFourth Circuit· 1981-11-10· cited 20×
- Adams v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas· 1981-01-28· cited 17×
- Matheson v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas· 1974-04-17· cited 13×
- Julian Lionel Scott v. United StatesFifth Circuit· 1979-07-05· cited 6×
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.