State v. Perez
Texas Court of Appeals, 4th District (San Antonio)
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
RICKHOFF, Justice.
This appeal questions whether the double jeopardy clause prohibits the State from prosecuting under the Texas Controlled Substances Tax Act after prosecuting under the Texas Controlled Substances Act. Appellee, Michael Perez, pled guilty to possession of marijuana and received ten years deferred adjudication. The trial court subsequently dismissed appellee’s indictment for possession of marijuana in violation of the tax act. In three points of error, the State contends the trial court erred in applying the double jeopardy clause to the dismissed indictment. We reverse…
2Cases cited14 opinions
- Blockburger v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1931
- North Carolina v. PearceSupreme Court of the United States · 1969
- United States v. DixonSupreme Court of the United States · 1993
- United States v. HalperSupreme Court of the United States · 1989
- Austin v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1993
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by11 opinions
- State v. Lara, Texas Court of Appeals, 13th District1996
- State v. StubblefieldNebraska Supreme Court · 1996
- Harris County District Attorney's Office v. R.R.R., Texas Court of Appeals, 14th District (Houston)1996
- State v. Albert G. Hill III, Texas Court of Appeals, 5th District (Dallas)2018
- Rough v. Ojeda, Texas Court of Appeals, 4th District (San Antonio)1997
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.