1 Tenn. Crim. App. 694 - Shepard v. Henderson’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

1 federal appellate · 24 state decisions

Most-quoted passages

The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 25 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““Moreover, there is a presumption that in entering pleas of guilty, court-appointed counsel for an accused acts properly and with his knowledge and consent. Tibbett v. Hand, 294 F.2d 68 (10th Cir.1961); Norvell v. Illinois, 373 U.S. 420 , 83 S.Ct. 1366 , 10 L.Ed.2d 456 .” “The fact that the petitioners were represented by competent counsel at the time they entered their guilty pleas is ‘a factor which strongly militates against the conclusion that the plea was involuntary.’ Reed v. Henderson, supra. “But equally important, and following inexorably from the rule that a voluntary and knowledgeable plea of guilty waives all prior non-jurisdictional and procedural defects and constitutional infirmities, if any, such a plea also constitutes a waiver of alleged prior involuntary custodial confessions or admissions. A guilty-plea conviction is based entirely upon the plea. Such a plea constitutes a conviction in and of itself and is conclusive. Brooks v. State, 187 Tenn. 67 , 213 S.W.2d 7 ; State ex rel. Barnes v. Henderson, 220 Tenn. 719 , 423 S.W.2d 497 , Reed v. Henderson, supra; Kercheval v. United States, 274 U.S. 220 , 47 S.Ct. 582 , 71 L.Ed. 1009 ; Machibroda v. United States, 368 U.S. 487 , 82 S.Ct. 510 , 7 L.Ed. 2d 473 . Having entered such a plea, the accused may not thereafter raise and rely upon such constitutionally inadmissible confessions in a habeas corpus or post-conviction proceeding. Reed v. Henderson, 385 F.2d 995 , supra. ‘Conviction and sentence following a ple”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
   e.g. 4 Tenn. Crim. App. 723 - Webb v. State · 4 Tenn. Crim. App. 296 - Washington v. Tollett

2. ““ * * * But this contention is foreclosed upon other grounds. In State ex rel. Edmondson v. Henderson, 220 Tenn. 605 , 421 S.W.2d 635 , in rejecting the same insistence, the Court said: ‘Although T.C.A. § 40-2310 provides that upon a plea of guilty, when the punishment is confinement in the penitentiary, a jury shall be impaneled to hear the evidence and fix the punishment, this is not a constitutionally afforded right, and is waived when a defendant, acting on advice of counsel enters a voluntary, knowledgeable plea of guilty, and allows a judgment of conviction to become final. And, moreover, does not exhaust appellate remedies afforded him. So far as we are aware, there is no state or federal holding that in addition to a voluntary, knowledgeable confession of guilt by a plea of guilty, there must also be proof of the guilt introduced before the jury. In Tennessee, the right under consid eration is simply a statutory right, and may be waived. State v. Simmons, 199 Tenn. 479 , 287 S.W.2d 71 ; McCord and Anglin v. Henderson, Warden, C.A. 6th Cir., 384 F.2d 135 , opinion filed October 25, 1967.’”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
   e.g. 4 Tenn. Crim. App. 79 - Adams v. State

3. ““Moreover, under the authorities here-inabove cited concerning the legal effect and import of a voluntary plea of guilty, and there being no arguable question about the trial court’s jurisdiction of the person and subject matter in Owens’ original trial, all alleged prior defects in the proceedings against him, if any, including the alleged right to and denial of counsel in the juvenile court hearing, were waived by his voluntary guilty pleas to the indictments and he is now precluded from raising any such alleged prior unconstitutional infringement of his rights by collateral attack upon his conviction.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
   e.g. 3 Tenn. Crim. App. 385 - Crumley v. State