Villescas v. State

How courts have described this case

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

• concluding that “appellant was given sufficient notice of the enhancement allegation” when the State filed and served a “notice of enhancement” 6 days before trial
• concluding that “appellant was given sufficient notice of the enhancement allegation” when the State filed and served a “notice of enhancement” 6 days before trial
• concluding that notice requirement dictated by Brooks is of constitutional origin
• holding that “when a defendant has no defense to the enhancement allegation and has not suggested the need for a continuance in order to prepare one, notice given at the beginning of the punishment phase satisfies the federal constitution”
• holding notice sufficient when defendant stipulated to the conviction and did not request a continuance
• stating that requiring notice to come before the trial on guilt ignores the possibility that the trial court could take measures to cure the notice problem by granting a continuance

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).