Mikel v. State

How courts have described this case

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

• concluding that a harm analysis is inappropriate when the evidence is insufficient to support findings of true to habitual offender enhancements
• holding that harm analysis is inappropriate where record shows that second enhancement paragraph should not have been used to enhance punishment to habitual offender range
• holding that harm analysis is inappropriate where record shows that second enhancement paragraph should not have been used to enhance punishment to habitual offender range
• holding harm analysis inappropriate where evidence is insufficient to support findings of true to habitual offender enhancements
• holding harm analysis inappropriate where evidence is insufficient to support findings of true to habitual offender enhancements
• holding no rational trier of fact could have found the second enhancement paragraph to be true where the evidence affirmatively reflected it did not occur in the proper sequence

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).