Skip to main content

Skinner v. State

Citations

  • 293 S.W.3d 196
  • 2009 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 1556
  • 2009 WL 3013563

How courts have described this case

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

  • holding that trial counsel’s explanation that he did not ask for testing because “he was afraid the DNA would turn out to be appellant’s” was sufficient trial strategy
  • explaining that Rule 77.3 “prohibits the use of an unpublished opinion as authority of any sort, whether binding or persuasive”
  • interpreting Chapter 64 provisions in conjunction and observing that, in interpreting statutes, we presume that the entire statute is \intended to be effective\
  • denying post-conviction DNA testing because defense counsel made a “reasonable” decision to forgo testing at trial
  • if trial counsel declined to seek testing because of a reasonable fear that the results would be incriminating at trial, post-trial testing is not usually required by the interests of justice

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

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

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

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

Cites

8 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.