Plessinger v. State

How courts have described this case

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

• holding variance in style of case pleaded for enhancement not material where defendant not surprised or misled to his prejudice
• holding variance in style of case pleaded for enhancement not material where defendant not surprised or misled to his prejudice
• admonishing Awhile the carelessness here involved is not to be condoned, we are unable to say that appellant has shown surprise or that he was misled to his prejudice@
• admonishing A[w]hile the carelessness here involved is not to be condoned, we are unable to say that appellant has shown surprise or that he was misled to his prejudice.@
• which overruled Corley to the extent of any conflict though Plessinger involved a variance in the style of the case alleged concerning the prior conviction and the proof
• difference between pleading that prior conviction was named “State of Texas v. [defendant]” and proof that prior conviction was named “State of Arizona v. [defendant]” immaterial

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).