Upload a complaint or brief to quickly find on-point case law.
CARA A.I. uses the facts and legal issues in your document to find relevant authorities.
Drag a complaint or brief hereUpload a complaint or briefPDF documentWORD documentTXT documentOr, choose a document to uploadChoose DocumentSecure
Find on-point cases faster with CARA A.I.
§

In re Shoe

235 S.W.3d 782 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007)
Depth of Treatment
Newest to Oldest
Oldest to Newest
Cite Count
In re Shoe

5 Citing cases

  1. Ybarra v. Thaler

    No. A-11-CA-427-SS (W.D. Tex. May. 25, 2012)

    In Ex parte Shoe, a defendant who had bargained for a sentence that did not include a mandatory fine was held to be estopped from complaining that the sentence was unlawful. 137 S.W.3d 100, 102-03 (Tex. App.-Fort Worth 2004), pet. dism'd, improvidently granted, 235 S.W.3d 782 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007). In Petitioner's case, the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals denied Petitioner's claim, raised in his state application for habeas corpus relief.

  2. Morris v. State

    NO. 12-13-00312-CR (Tex. App. Aug. 29, 2014)

    However, even if a defendant cannot waive this right, the doctrine of invited error may estop him from asserting it on appeal. See Mapes, 187 S.W.3d 655; Ex parte Shoe, 137 S.W.3d 100, 102 (Tex. App.-Fort Worth 2004), pet. dism'd, 235 S.W.3d 782. In Shoe, the appellant was convicted of DWI in 1997 pursuant to a plea bargain agreement.

  3. Tow v. State State From the 371st Dist. Court of Tarrant Cnty.

    NO. 02-11-00067-CR (Tex. App. Jan. 12, 2012)   Cited 1 times

    We overrule Appellant's third issue. SeeSpeth v. State, 6 S.W.3d 530, 534-35 (Tex. Crim. App. 1999), cert. denied, 529 U.S. 1088 (2000); Ex parte Shoe, 137 S.W.3d 100, 102-03 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2004), pet. dism'd as improvidently granted, 235 S.W.3d 782 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007). III.

  4. State v. Stewart

    282 S.W.3d 729 (Tex. App. 2009)   Cited 37 times
    Holding that trial court did not abuse its discretion in granting new trial on punishment in interest of justice when record reflected that trial court relied upon error in pre-sentence investigation report in calculating punishment and noting that it was not holding that “a trial judge has the discretion to grant a defendant a new trial merely because the judge has had second thoughts about the punishment he assessed”

    In Ex parte Shoe, a defendant who had bargained for a sentence that did not include a mandatory fine was held to be estopped from complaining that the sentence was unlawful. 137 S.W.3d 100, 102-03 (Tex.App.-Fort Worth 2004), pet. dism'd, improvidently granted, 235 S.W.3d 782 (Tex.Crim.App. 2007). In Schultz v. State, a defendant who had been convicted of subsequent family violence assault was held to be estopped from challenging the sufficiency of the evidence as to the previous conviction because, after the jury returned its guilty verdict, he had agreed to a felony sentence in exchange for certain concessions by the State. 255 S.W.3d 153, 155 (Tex.App.-San Antonio 2008, no pet.).

  5. Degadillo v. State

    262 S.W.3d 371 (Tex. App. 2008)   Cited 7 times
    Holding that defendant was estopped from complaining about the trial court's actions, even if those actions were fundamental error, when defendant requested that the trial court substitute an excused member of the venire for a disqualified juror after jury was sworn

    The doctrine of invited error has been previously applied by this court. In one case, we applied it to an illegal sentence for which the defendant had entered into a plea bargain with the State. Ex parte Shoe, 137 S.W.3d 100, 101-03 (Tex.App.-Fort Worth 2004), pet. dism'd, 235 S.W.3d 782 (Tex.Crim.App. 2007). Because the defendant had requested the sentence and accepted the benefit of not having a fine assessed against him, we held that he was "estopped from challenging the illegal sentence because he accepted the benefits of it."