Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Lopez v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas

Decided May 8, 1996No. 1151-94Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in part

KELLER, Judge,

concurring and dissenting on appellant’s petition for discretionary review.

I agree with the majority opinion’s disposition of the vindictiveness and “ex post facto” claims. However, I disagree with some of the opinion’s reasoning regarding the “ex post facto claim,” and I disagree with the majority’s disposition of the admission of evidence claim.

I. THE EX POST FACTO CLAIM

The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment prevents appellate courts from “achieving precisely the same result by judicial construction” that would be achieved by a legislature if it passed a law in…

2Cases cited22 opinions

  1. Brown v. OhioSupreme Court of the United States · 1977
  2. Mullaney v. WilburSupreme Court of the United States · 1975
  3. Hamling v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1974
  4. Rose v. ClarkSupreme Court of the United States · 1986
  5. Marks v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1977

17 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