Holcombe v. Texas
| Decision Date | 02 October 2006 |
| Docket Number | No. 05-1640.,05-1640. |
| Citation | 75 USLW 3165,127 S.Ct. 176,75 USLW 3023,549 U.S. 824,75 USLW 3001,166 L.Ed.2d 41,75 USLW 3155 |
| Parties | Stephen John HOLCOMBE, petitioner, v. TEXAS. |
| Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
Case below, 187 S.W.3d 496.
Petition for writ of certiorari to the Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas denied.
To continue reading
Request your trial
12 cases
-
State v. Empey
...103 S.Ct. 1855, 1858, 75 L.Ed.2d 903 (1983) ; State v. Holcombe , 187 S.W.3d 496, 499 (Tex.Crim.App.), cert. denied , 549 U.S. 824, 127 S.Ct. 176, 166 L.Ed.2d 41 (2006) ; see also State v. Edmond , 933 S.W.2d 120, 125 (Tex.Crim.App.1996) ("[T]he rationale for the vagueness doctrine extends ......
-
Flores v. State
...104, 108, 92 S.Ct. 2294, 33 L.Ed.2d 222 (1972); State v. Holcombe, 187 S.W.3d 496, 499 (Tex.Crim.App.), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 127 S.Ct. 176, 166 L.Ed.2d 41(2006). A statute is not impermissibly vague because it fails to define certain words or phrases. Holcombe, 187 S.W.3d at 499. Fur......
-
Lawrence v. State
...if its prohibitions are not clearly defined. State v. Holcombe, 187 S.W.3d 496, 499 (Tex.Crim.App.), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 127 S.Ct. 176, 166 L.Ed.2d 41 (2006); State v. Markovich, 77 S.W.3d 274, 279 (Tex.Crim.App.2002). We uphold a vagueness challenge only if the statute is impermiss......
-
Brown v. State
...State v. Holcombe, 145 S.W.3d 246, 250 (Tex.App.–Fort Worth 2004), aff'd,187 S.W.3d 496 (Tex.Crim.App.), cert. denied,549 U.S. 824, 127 S.Ct. 176, 166 L.Ed.2d 41 (2006). We must determine whether the statute reaches “a substantial amount of constitutionally protected conduct.” SeeUnited Sta......
Request a trial to view additional results