Legal Opinion

Ex Parte Shoe

Court of Appeals of Texas

Decided March 18, 2004No. 2-02-099-CRPublishedCited by 21 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION ON REMAND

2Per curiam

This case is before us on remand for consideration of the State’s contention that appellant pro se Thomas Franklin Shoe is estopped from arguing that his 1997 conviction for driving while intoxicated (DWI) is illegal because he accepted the benefit of a fine not being assessed.

Pursuant to a plea bargain agreement, appellant was convicted of DWI on October 16, 1997, and sentenced to forty days in jail. On March 1, 2002, appellant filed an application for writ of habeas corpus in the trial court pursuant to the Texas Constitution, arguing that the conviction and judgment are…

3Cases cited11 opinions

  1. Marin v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 1993
  2. Prystash v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 1999
  3. Mizell v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 2003
  4. Matchett v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 1996
  5. People v. HesterCalifornia Supreme Court · 2000

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

4Cited by21 opinions

  1. Meineke v. State, Texas Court of Appeals, 14th District (Houston)2005
  2. State v. Stewart, Texas Court of Appeals, 3rd District (Austin)2009
  3. Mapes v. State, Texas Court of Appeals, 14th District (Houston)2006
  4. Ex Parte ShoeCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 2007
  5. DEGADILLO v. StateCourt of Appeals of Texas · 2008

16 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