# Ex Parte Mitchell

> Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · November 19, 1997 · 977 S.W.2d 575

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9684862

## Case

- **Full name:** Ex Parte Andrew Lee MITCHELL, Applicant
- **Court:** Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas
- **Decided:** November 19, 1997
- **Citations:** 977 S.W.2d 575; 1997 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 92; 1997 WL 716683
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Price
- **Judges:** Mansfield, Meyers, Price, Baird, Keller, Davis, Overstreet
- **Cited by:** 110 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- **Yellow flag:** Criticized by John Hamilton Leib, Jr. v. State (2002).
- Negative treatments: 1
- Distinguished by: 0
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9684862

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- explaining that double-jeopardy provisions from United States Constitution and Texas Constitution “provide substantially identical protections”
- holding that the proper remedy after a finding of prosecutorial misconduct is a reversal of conviction and remand for new trial
- noting the Court’s long-standing precedent holding that the double-jeopardy provisions of both constitutions provide “substantially identical protections”

## Opinion text

PRICE, Judge,
concurring.
I concur with the denial of applicant’s motion for rehearing. According to our “hand down” sheet, this Court granted all six of applicant’s grounds for review. However, a review of our voting record indicates that a majority of this Court agreed to grant review on only the two grounds addressed in the opinion; the implication in the “hand down” sheet to the contrary was due to a clerical error. Therefore, we need not address applicant’s other grounds for review.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9684862. Public record. Not legal advice.