Skip to main content

Whatley v. State

Citations

  • 946 S.W.2d 73
  • 1997 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 31
  • 1997 WL 249108

How courts have described this case

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

  • holding that no fundamental unfairness resulted in State‘s failing to specify the type of weapon when appellant received notice and did not request additional specificity
  • holding that no fundamental unfairness resulted in State’s failing to specify the type of weapon when appellant received notice and did not request additional specificity
  • finding it inappropriate to address an issue that was neither addressed by the court of appeals nor raised in a petition to this Court
  • a showing of fundamental unfairness sometimes requires a request for a particular remedy when the defendant has at least some notice of the problem in time to make a request
  • in holding judgment not defective despite its not specifying that firearm was used, nonetheless noting, “The Code does require the judgment to designate the deadly weapon as a firearm if there is a finding that the deadly weapon was a firearm. [Art. 42.12,] § 3g(a

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Keller, Womack, Baird, Overstreet

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

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

Cites

15 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.