State v. Rios’s Empirical Analysis
1976
Citation profile
41 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 41 later decisions — most recently October 1992 · most notably State v. Rogel (1977), State v. Ellis (1977)
41 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 · State v. Mendiola · State v. Rodriguez · State v. Lee · State v. Tiznado
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 41 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Our Supreme Court has recently stated: “The provisions of this Rule (Rule 17.2) ‘are intended to insure the voluntary and intelligent quality of the plea in accord with Boykin v. Alabama, 395 U.S. 238 , 89 S.Ct. 1709 , 23 L.Ed.2d 274 (1969).’ State v. Lee, 112 Ariz. 283 , 541 P.2d 383 (1975). A plea cannot be considered ‘intelligently’ made where, as in this case, there is no evidence that the defendant was at any stage of the prosecution provided information required to be disclosed to him under Rule 17.2.” State v. Rios, 113 Ariz. 30 , 545 P.2d 954, 956 (1976).”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Davis““Before accepting a plea of guilty or no contest, the court shall address the defendant personally in open court, informing him of and determining that he understands the following: “b. The nature and range of possible sentence for the offense to which the plea is offered, including any special conditions regarding sentence, parole, or commutation imposed by statute; . . . ””
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Cuthbertson
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.