Legal Opinion
Lovill v. State
Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas
Decided December 16, 2009No. PD-0401-09PublishedCited by 325 opinions
1Opinion of the Court 1
OPINION
2Opinion of the Court · KeaslerKeasler, J.
in which KELLER, P.J., MEYERS, PRICE, WOMACK, HERVEY, HOLCOMB, and COCHRAN, JJ., joined.
The Corpus Christi Court of Appeals held that Amber Lovill’s selective prosecution complaint was preserved because, among other things, everyone understood her complaint and she presented a selective prosecution complaint in a motion for a new trial.1 We disagree. Under the *689particular facts here, Lovill forfeited her selective prosecution complaint for appellate purposes because her revocation proceeding statements were not specific and timely as required by Rule 33.1 of the Texas Rules of Appellate…
3Cases cited25 opinions
- Yick Wo v. HopkinsSupreme Court of the United States · 1886
- United States v. ArmstrongSupreme Court of the United States · 1996
- Reno v. American-Arab Anti-Discrimination CommitteeSupreme Court of the United States · 1999
- Marin v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 1993
- Lankston v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 1992
20 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
4Cited by325 opinions
- Tapia, Gilbert Jr.Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 2015
- Edwards v. StateCourt of Appeals of Texas · 2016
- Hallmark v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 2017
- Black v. State, Texas Court of Appeals, 2nd District (Fort Worth)2012
- Juan Jose Reyes v. State, Texas Court of Appeals, 10th District (Waco)2013
320 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.