Skip to main content

State v. Evans

Citations

  • 843 S.W.2d 576
  • 1992 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 238
  • 1992 WL 366951

How courts have described this case

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

  • holding motion to withdraw or reconsider plea should more aptly have been called a motion for new trial and order granting motion was functionally indistinguishable from order granting a new trial, thereby allowing State to appeal
  • holding motion to withdraw or reconsider plea should more aptly have been called a motion for new trial and order granting motion was functionally indistinguishable from order granting a new trial, thereby allowing State to appeal
  • permitting State to appeal from defendant's \Motion to Withdraw Plea of Nolo Contendere\ by construing it as the granting of a motion for new trial
  • noting that motion’s title is not controlling
  • “While designated as a motion to reconsider a plea, appellant’s motion should more aptly have been called a motion for new trial.”
  • post-trial motion to withdraw plea was functionally indistinguishable from motion for new trial, and was properly treated as such

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Benavides

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

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

Cites

3 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.