# Mitchell v. State

> Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · January 30, 2002 · 68 S.W.3d 640

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9755595

## Case

- **Full name:** William MITCHELL, Appellant, v. the STATE of Texas
- **Court:** Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas
- **Decided:** January 30, 2002
- **Citations:** 68 S.W.3d 640; 2002 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 18; 2002 WL 122817
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Meyers
- **Judges:** Womack, Meyers, Keller, Price, Johnson, Keasler, Holcomb, Cochran, Hervey
- **Cited by:** 833 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/9755595

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

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

## Opinion text

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).

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9755595. Public record. Not legal advice.