Legal Opinion

Clay v. Lynaugh

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas

Decided April 26, 1989No. 70362PublishedCited by 5 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION ON CERTIFIED QUESTION FROM THE FIFTH CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS

2Per curiam

In Ex parte McWilliams, 634 S.W.2d 815 (Tex.Cr.App.1982) (Opinion on rehearing), this Court, by its own terms, “abandoned” the so-called “carving doctrine” as a litmus for determining violations of state and federal protections against double jeopardy, finding the rule "nebulous” in content and “erratic” in application. Two years later the Court held Ex parte McWilliams, supra, to have “full retroactive application to all cases whether they arise on collateral review or direct appeal.” Ex parte Clay, 675 S.W.2d 765, 768…

Also in this document: Concurring in part, dissenting in part.

3Cases cited12 opinions

  1. Ex Parte McWilliamsCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 1982
  2. Phillips v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 1980
  3. Orosco v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 1979
  4. George Anthony Rubino v. James A. Lynaugh, Director, Texas Department of Corrections, RespondentCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1988
  5. Ex Parte CalderonCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 1974

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

4Cited by5 opinions

  1. Ex Parte ScalesCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 1993
  2. Owens v. StateCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1993
  3. Rubino v. LynaughCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 1989
  4. David Franklin Clay v. James A. Lynaugh, Director, Texas Department of CorrectionsCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1989
  5. Rubino v. LynaughCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 1989

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

Powered by the Exa API