Legal Opinion

Parkerson v. State

Texas Court of Appeals, 2nd District (Fort Worth)

Decided April 3, 1997No. 02-95-518-CRPublishedCited by 54 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION

HOLMAN, Justice.

In his sole point of error, Appellant David Scott Parkerson complains that the trial court’s refusal to dismiss his misdemeanor driving while intoxicated charge violated his right to a speedy trial guaranteed by the United States and Texas Constitutions. We disagree and affirm.

The Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution, applied to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment, guarantees the right to a speedy trial. Klopfer v. North Carolina, 386 U.S. 213, 223-24, 87 S.Ct. 988, 993-94, 18 L.Ed.2d 1, 8 (1967). The Texas Constitution, article I, section 10, also…

2Cases cited17 opinions

  1. Barker v. WingoSupreme Court of the United States · 1972
  2. Klopfer v. North CarolinaSupreme Court of the United States · 1967
  3. Harris v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 1992
  4. Phillips v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 1983
  5. Russell v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 1980

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

3Cited by54 opinions

  1. Zamorano v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 2002
  2. Cantu v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 2008
  3. Russell v. State, Texas Court of Appeals, 4th District (San Antonio)2003
  4. State v. Jones, Texas Court of Appeals, 5th District (Dallas)2005
  5. Patrice Murphy v. State, Texas Court of Appeals, 2nd District (Fort Worth)2009

49 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