# Jimenez v. State

> Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · September 13, 2000 · 32 S.W.3d 233

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9733438

## Case

- **Full name:** Johnny Silva JIMENEZ, Appellant, v. the STATE of Texas
- **Court:** Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas
- **Decided:** September 13, 2000
- **Citations:** 32 S.W.3d 233; 2000 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 81; 2000 WL 1283732
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Keller
- **Judges:** Womack, Mansfield, Price, Holland, Keasler, McCormick, Keller, Meyers, Johnson
- **Cited by:** 201 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/9733438

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- recognizing that constitutional issues should not be addressed if the case can be resolved on nonconstitutional grounds
- recognizing that A[t]he term >due process of law= in the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the federal constitution and the term >due course of law= in our state constitution mean the same thing@
- stating that federal due process and state due course of law mean the same thing
- stating that “due process of law” and “due course of law” mean the same thing

## Opinion text

KELLER, J.,
delivered a concurring opinion.
By failing to object, appellant has forfeited any right to have his claim analyzed under the standard of harm for constitutional errors, found in Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 44.2(a). In addition, there is no due process violation in this case because appellant faded to request relief. Whatley v. State, 946 S.W.2d 73, 75-76 (Tex.Crim.App.1997).

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9733438. Public record. Not legal advice.