Wesley Paul Males v. the State of Texas

How courts have described this case

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

• explaining that there is no multiple punishment in that scenario because the offender “has, by his own actions, triggered the condition that permits appropriate modification of the terms of confinement”
• declaring that the rule prohibiting a post-sentencing increase in a defendant's sentence \simply does not apply when [the legislature] has provided a court with the power to modify a sentence in light of changed circumstances\
• declaring that the rule prohibiting a post-sentencing increase in a defendant's sentence \simply does not apply when [the legislature] has provided a court with the power to modify a sentence in light of changed cireumstances\
• referring to FYCA probation revocation: “In the future, we expect that judges will eliminate interpretive difficulties by making an explicit ‘no benefit’ finding with respect to the remainder of the YCA sentence.”
• because Youth Corrections Act contemplates possibility of sentence modification when a subsequent offense is committed, increased sentence after subsequent offense is not prohibited multiple punishment
• if conditions of confinement are modified so that a youth serves an adult sentence of greater length than an adult could receive, constitutional issues may arise

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).