Barnett v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

1 federal appellate · 86 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 89 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “(1) post-conviction counsel takes no action on a movant’s behalf with respect to filing an amended motion and as such the record shows that the movant is deprived of a meaningful review of his claims; or (2) when post-conviction counsel is aware of the need to file an amended post-conviction relief motion and fails to do so in a timely manner.”

   7 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Hewitt v. State · Milner v. State

2. “To be entitled to an evidentiary hearing, a movant must: (1) allege facts, not conclusions, that, if true, would warrant relief; (2) these facts must raise matters not refuted by the record and files in the case; and (3) the matters complained of must have resulted in prejudice to the movant. State v. Brooks, 960 S.W.2d 479, 497 (Mo.banc 1997). An evidentiary hearing is not required if the files and records of the case conclusively show that movant is entitled to no relief. Rule 29.15(h). Moreover, to obtain an evidentiary hearing with respect to claims related to ineffective assistance of counsel, movant must allege facts showing that counsel’s performance did not conform to the degree of skill, care and diligence of a reasonably competent attorney and that movant was thereby prejudiced. Brooks, 960 S.W.2d at 497 .”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Taylor v. State

3. “Even if Barnett’s claim were not procedurally barred, Barnett’s claim would still be without merit. This Court has recognized that submission of the no-adverse inference instruction is optional. See MAI-CR 3d 308.1k, Notes on Use 2; see also Knese v. State, 85 S.W.3d 628, 635 (Mo. banc 2002) (holding that it is reasonable for counsel to forego requesting the instruction, believing that it highlights the fact that the defendant did not testify). The omission of this optional instruction fails to establish prejudice cognizable by Strickland. 18”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Barnett v. Roper