State v. Hooper’s Empirical Analysis
1971
Citation profile
65 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 65 later decisions — most recently January 1982 · most notably State v. Darling (1973), State v. Church (1973)
65 state decisions
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
Relationships
Relies on Boykin v. Alabama · North Carolina v. Alford · McCarthy v. United States · Pilkington v. United States · State v. Griswold
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 65 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““Since the record reflects that the defendant voluntarily pled guilty to the amended information and he does not urge that he was unaware of the consequences of his plea, we would ordinarily assume that his lawyer advised him of the possible benefits to be derived from a plea of guilty to the reduced charge and, therefore, of the differences in the range of punishments. But, since the record does not affirmatively show that Hooper was advised he could receive up to ten years, we will order that this case be returned to the Superior Court of Maricopa County, with directions that an evidentiary hearing be held to determine whether defendant was advised by his counsel before pleading guilty to the amended information of the possible range of sentence.” State v. Hooper, supra, 107 Ariz. 327 at 330 , 487 P.2d 394 at 397 . See also State v. Church, 109 Ariz. 39 , 504 P.2d 940 , filed January 4, 1973.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Darling““We think the decision, by the use of the word ‘intelligent’, must have been intended to be the equivalent of that part of Federal Rule 11 which requires that the federal judge determine that a plea is made with an understanding of the ‘consequences of the plea.’ We have also examined the federal cases construing Rule 11. In at least eight of the eleven federal circuits the words ‘consequences of the plea’ have been held to mean that a defendant is required to have been advised of the highest range of the possible sentence before pleading.” 107 Ariz. at 329 , 487 P.2d at 396 .”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Woods
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.