Skip to main content

Rickels v. State

Citations

  • 108 S.W.3d 900
  • 2003 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 119
  • 2003 WL 21463940

How courts have described this case

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

  • holding that if defendant had opportunity to challenge modifications of supervision, vagueness cannot be raised as defense at revocation
  • holding that if defendant had opportunity to challenge modifications of supervision, vagueness cannot be raised as defense at revocation
  • holding that the defendant could present his complaint for the first time on appeal because “the [trial] court modified the terms of [the defendant’s] probation without a hearing, and [the defendant] had no opportunity to object.”
  • holding condition providing that appellant not go within 300 feet of a child safety zone not vague
  • holding condition providing that appellant not go within 300 feet of a child safety zone not vague
  • recognizing exception to the general rule of error preservation when the defendant does not have the opportunity to object to the condition at the time it is imposed

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

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

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

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

Cites

4 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

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.