Legal Opinion · Dissent

Ex Parte Gardner

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas

Decided February 4, 1998No. 72007Published

1DissentOverstreet, Judge

The majority admits that the procedural history recited in its opinion on original submission was incorrectly stated, and that this Court erroneously denied relief on applicant’s claim in his first habeas corpus application because it was under the mistaken belief that this claim had been raised and decided on direct appeal. Yet it continues to hold that applicant procedurally defaulted his Fifth Amendment Estelle v. Smith claim because he did not raise it on direct appeal. Ex parte Gardner, 959 S.W.2d 189, 199 (Tex.Cr.App.1998).

As on original submission, the majority continues to chastise…

2Cases cited11 opinions

  1. Hernandez v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 1990
  2. Forbes v. Holiday Corp. Savings & Retirement PlanSupreme Court of the United States · 1991
  3. Ex Parte GardnerCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 1998
  4. Northwest Forest Resource Council v. Portland Audubon SocietySupreme Court of the United States · 1989
  5. Ex Parte ChambersCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 1984

6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API