Skip to main content

Whitfield v. State

Citations

  • 430 S.W.3d 405
  • 2014 WL 1796665
  • 2014 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 689

How courts have described this case

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

  • recognizing that Chapter 64 re- confers limited subject-matter jurisdiction in convicting court
  • recognizing that judge’s refusal to appoint counsel for post- conviction DNA testing is not immediately “appealable order” under 64.05 “because it is a preliminary decision that is appropriately reviewed as alleged error after a motion for DNA testing is denied”
  • observing that, under TEX. CONST. art. V, § 6, “a statute must expressly give the courts of appeals jurisdiction”
  • recognizing trial court’s “unfavorable findings” equated to finding under article 64.04 that there was no reasonable probability that defendant would not have been convicted had the results been available at his trial
  • statutory construction focuses on a review of the statutory text
  • statutory construction focuses on a review of the statutory text

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Womack, Keller, Meyers, Price, Johnson, Hervey, Cochran, Alcala, Keasler

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

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

Cites

43 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.