State v. Cuthbertson’s Empirical Analysis
1977
Citation profile
21 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 21 later decisions — most recently August 2012
21 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. Rice · State v. Rogel · State v. Rios · State v. Ross
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 21 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““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; *******”
3 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Denney · State v. Dishong““ * * * Federal Rule 11, supra, requires the court to determine that defendant understands the nature of the charge, the mandatory minimum and the maximum possible penalty. Apparently Boykin, supra, requires at least this much information as to the sentence before the plea can be said to be intelligently made. This requirement is of constitutional dimensions and must be complied with. What of the myriad of senténcing special conditions found in our statutes; is it necessary to explain all of these in order to find that the mandate of Boykin, supra, has been met? Our response to that is, no, not always. * * * “Under Rule 17.2, supra, it is error for the trial judge to fail to assure himself that the defendant understands the range of the sentence and the special conditions applying to that sentence. However, if the defendant was not prejudiced by his lack of understanding of the complete provisions of the sentencing statute, the error is not reversible error. * * *” State v. Cuthbertson, 117 Ariz. -, -, 570 P.2d 1075, 1077 , filed October 17, 1977.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Lee · State v. Soloman
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.