Opinion

Mitchell v. State

  • 68 S.W.3d 640
  • 2002 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 18
  • 2002 WL 122817
Court
Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas
Filed
Jan 30, 2002
Status
Published
Author
Meyers
On the bench
Womack, Meyers, Keller, Price, Johnson, Keasler, Holcomb, Cochran, Hervey
Cited by
833 cases
Authority
More cited than 10.3%

explaining that if previously objected to evidence is introduced from another source without objection, defendant may not challenge admission on appeal

How later courts described this case

  • explaining that if previously objected to evidence is introduced from another source without objection, defendant may not challenge admission on appeal
  • holding that petition for writ of habeas corpus usually is appropriate vehicle for investigating ineffective assistance claims
  • stating that a writ of habeas corpus is the appropriate vehicle to investigate ineffective assistance of counsel claims
  • holding that the reasonableness of counsel’s choices often involves facts that do not appear in the appellate record

Written by the judges who cited it.

The opinion

MEYERS, J.,

dissenting with note.

I respectfully dissent in accordance with my dissenting opinion in Mallett v. State, 65 S.W.3d 59 (Tex. Crim. App.2001).

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.