Skip to main content

London v. State

Citations

  • 490 S.W.3d 503
  • 2016 WL 2941060
  • 2016 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 82

How courts have described this case

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

  • stating that complaints a statute is unconstitutional as applied generally should not be raised before trial
  • holding the intermediate appellate court “could have addressed Appellant’s as-applied challenge . . . [b]ecause the record [was] sufficient to consider Appellant’s constitutional claim”
  • observing that “the appealing 12 party carries the burden to ensure that the record on appeal is sufficient to resolve the issues presented”
  • providing that the phrase “as soon as the grounds for it become apparent” means “as soon as the [objecting party] knows or should know that an error has occurred.” (emphasis added
  • stating that the appealing party generally carries the burden to ensure that the record on appeal is sufficient to resolve the issues presented and failure to provide a sufficient appellate record precludes appellate review of a claim
  • explaining defendant declared indigent prior to pleading \presumed to remain indigent for the remainder of the proceedings in the case unless a material change in [his] financial circumstances occur[red]\ (internal quotations omitted)

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Newell

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

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

Cites

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

Other cases named London v. State

40 other CourtListener records share this case 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.