Dennis D. WHEELER, Appellant, v. the STATE of Texas

2002-01-30 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · United States

read the judgment

10What it rests on

3Relied on since

0Departed from

Relied on since

The judgments that cite this one. This is the answer that tells you the case is still alive.

20051 judgments8 years silent20131 judgments13 years silent20261 judgments

3 judgments have relied on it, across 2005–2026

first 2005 · last 2026 · busiest 2005 (1 judgments)

2026-08-20Christopher Dale Havens v. the State of TexasTexas Court of Appeals, 13th District 2013-09-18Paul PAWLAK, Appellant v. the STATE of TexasCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas 2005-01-12The STATE of Texas v. Matthew Reid MECHLER, AppelleeCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas×2

What it rests on

1999-10-20Ramiro Rubi IBARRA, Appellant, v. the STATE of TexasCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas×2 1992-02-12UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Emrolyn Kae WHITETAIL, AppellantEighth Circuit×2 1991-06-19Patrick Logan MONTGOMERY, Appellant, v. the STATE of Texas, AppelleeCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas×3 1988-09-14Denton Alan CRANK, Appellant, v. the STATE of Texas, AppelleeCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas×2 1988-01-14John Arthur RODDA, Appellant, v. the STATE of Texas, AppelleeCourt of Appeals of Texas×2 1986-02-18UNITED STATES of America v. Glenn I. WRIGHT, Appellant. UNITED STATES of America v. Dennis MOSS, AppellantD.C. Circuit×2 1985-04-24Lester BOUTWELL, Appellant, v. the STATE of Texas, AppelleeCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas×2 1976-03-24Phillip Wayne KINCAID, Appellant, v. the STATE of Texas, AppelleeCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas×2 1972-09-25Ervin Herman ALBRECHT, Appellant, v. the STATE of Texas, AppelleeCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas×2 1967-06-28J. J. JOHNSTON, Appellant, v. the STATE of Texas, AppelleeCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas×2

59 point outside the corpus. Read from the text, but no judgment held here answers to them. They are counted rather than hidden: this corpus is a slice, not the law.

Departed from

No judgment recorded a departure from this one.

Departure is not detected yet, and the gap is deliberate. Searching for the words the Court might use was measured on 1,019 judgments: "depart from" appears 100 times and most often means departing from the facts found by a domestic court; "overruled" appears 44 times, usually about a domestic judgment; "abandon" appears 123 times, most often as abandoned firearms. Tightened to require the Court itself as the subject, precision was still around 40%, the rest being a dissenting judge complaining, or a national supreme court departing from its own case-law. Telling a lawyer an authority is dead when it is alive is worse than saying nothing, so nothing is what this says until each candidate can be judged properly.

not characterised

Most citations carry no word at all. The Court does not always say what it is doing when it cites one of its own judgments, and where it stayed silent nothing is inferred here.