State v. Alingog’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

13 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 13 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “Brown supports the principle that a defendant who pleads guilty to and is sentenced for a lesser included offense cannot be reprosecuted for a greater offense arising from the same act. See 432 U.S. at 169 , 97 S.Ct. at 2227 (stating double jeopardy “forbids successive prosecution and cumulative punishment for a greater and lesser included offense”); United States v. Santiago Soto, 825 F.2d 616, 619 (1st Cir.1987) (holding that under Brown, jeopardy attaches not upon acceptance of guilty plea, but at time of imposition of sentence and entry of judgment); United States v. Combs, 634 F.2d 1295, 1298 (10th Cir.1980) (holding that acceptance of guilty plea immediately before trial for greater offense was not a criminal prosecution because “[ujntil entry of judgment and sentencing on the accepted guilty plea, defendant had not been formally convicted”), cert. denied, 451 U.S. 913 , 101 S.Ct. 1987 , 68 L.Ed.2d 304 (1981); cf. Johnson, 467 U.S. at 501-02 , 104 S.Ct. at 2541-43 (distinguishing Brown because the defendant there had been sentenced, and therefore, “convicted in a separate proceeding”; and stating the Court did not believe to be present “the principles of finality and prevention of prosecutorial overreaching applied in Broion ”).”

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

2. “The failure by the state to preserve error obviously does not itself constitute a miscarriage of justice; a miscarriage must exist notwithstanding failure to preserve error. Our rules requiring the preservation of questions for review are designed to do justice, and it is only when the merits of applying those rules clearly are outweighed by other principles of substantial justice that we will apply the doctrine of fundamental error. Rules of practice and procedure are devised to promote the ends of justice, not to defeat them.... Orderly rules of procedure do not require sacrifice of the rules of fundamental justice.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent
   e.g. State v. Tijerino

3. “The doctrine of fundamental error is invoked when a court considers it necessary to avoid a miscarriage of justice.”

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