holding that the nature of double-jeopardy protections are best suited as category two Marin rights
How later courts described this case
- holding that the nature of double-jeopardy protections are best suited as category two Marin rights
- noting, with exceptions, that under current state of law, “the clearly-apparent-from-the-record 4 factor requires that we reach the merits of the claim before determining whether the claim is properly presented”
- concluding that a free-standing double-jeopardy claim that could have been raised on direct appeal is not cognizable on habeas corpus
- noting, with exceptions, that under current state of law, “the clearly-apparent-from-the-record factor requires that we reach the merits of the claim before determining whether the claim is properly presented”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
OPINION
Per curiam.
Applicant was convicted of three charges of felony Bail Jumping and Failure to Appear, and he was sentenced to eight years’ imprisonment for each charge, to run concurrently. In these applications for writ of habeas corpus under Article 11.07 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, Applicant contends that these multiple convictions violate the constitutional prohibition against double jeopardy. We filed and set these applications to determine several issues associated with Applicant’s double-jeopardy claims. 1 We now conclude that *833 Applicant is not entitled to relief. Relief is denied.
Richardson, J., filed a concurring opinion in which Newell, J. joined.
Yeary, J., filed a concurring opinion in which Keasler, J., joined.
Meyers, J., filed a dissenting opinion.
Johnson, J., filed a dissenting opinion.
Alcala, J., filed a dissenting opinion in which Johnson, J., joined.
. Ex parte Marascio, Nos. WR-80,939-01, WR-80,939-02, & WR-80,939-03, 2014 WL 2002276 , 2014 Tex. Crim. App. Unpub. LEX *833 IS 488 (Tex.Crim.App. May 7, 2014) (not designated for publication).