Saylor v. State
Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION ON APPELLANT’S PETITION FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW
2Per curiam
In his pro se petition for discretionary review, appellant argues that he was denied effective assistance of counsel. In the court below, appellant’s counsel raised four grounds of error. The Court of Appeals, 650 S.W.2d 441, considered the first three grounds of error in detail. The fourth ground of error was presented by counsel at the request of appellant. Counsel asked that this fourth ground of error alleging ineffective assistance of counsel be considered as a pro se brief. The Court of Appeals noted in its opinion that they…
3Cases cited14 opinions
- Chapman v. CaliforniaSupreme Court of the United States · 1967
- United States v. HastingSupreme Court of the United States · 1983
- Mercado v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 1981
- Passmore v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 1981
- Ramos v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 1967
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
4Cited by149 opinions
- Allridge v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 1988
- Ex Parte KunkleCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 1993
- Schmutz v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 2014
- Jaenicke v. State, Texas Court of Appeals, 1st District (Houston)2003
- Lumpkin v. State, Texas Court of Appeals, 1st District (Houston)2004
144 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.