Skip to main content

Solis v. State

Citations

  • 792 S.W.2d 95
  • 1990 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 132
  • 1990 WL 87016

How courts have described this case

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

  • holding that the trial court is required to properly instruct the jury when the evidence clearly shows that a witness is an accomplice as a matter of law
  • stating that “[a]ppointment of new counsel is a matter solely within the discretion of the trial court”
  • stating that “[a]ppointment of new counsel is a matter solely within the discretion of the trial court”
  • stating that a reviewing court should not use hindsight to second guess a tactical decision made by trial counsel when that decision does not fall below the objective standard of reasonableness
  • “Viewing counsel’s representation as a whole, and assessing the cumulative effect of all of the trial counsel’s errors, we do not find that but for these errors the result of the trial would have been any different.”
  • \Appointment of new counsel is a matter solely within the discretion of the trial court.\

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: White, Clinton, Teague, Miller, State'S

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

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

Cites

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

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.