# Ex Parte Goodman

> Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · October 20, 2004 · 152 S.W.3d 67

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9641450

## Case

- **Full name:** Ex Parte Robbie GOODMAN, Appellant
- **Court:** Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas
- **Decided:** October 20, 2004
- **Citations:** 152 S.W.3d 67; 2004 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 1743; 2004 WL 2347794
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Keller
- **Judges:** Holcomb, Meyers, Price, Womack, Johnson, Keasler, Hervey, Cochran, Keller
- **Cited by:** 28 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9641450

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- holding that the State may retry a defendant for a different offense, provided the statute of limitations has not run and double jeopardy has not attached

## Opinion text

KELLER, P.J.,
concurring.
I join the opinion of the Court except to the extent that it specifies a particular procedure for protecting appellant from violation of his double jeopardy rights. The State should be prohibited from putting on evidence of a single theft that could have been proved under the original indictment. But jeopardy has not attached to the “the one constituent theft offense that most closely resembles” the one pled (whatever that might mean) or any other particular theft that the State could have proved under the indictment. To suggest that the procedure mandated by the Court is the only proper procedure is contrary to our on-or-about jurisprudence.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9641450. Public record. Not legal advice.