Hernandez v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

54 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 57 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “[A]n equivocal warning from the trial court . . . cannot, by itself, remove prejudice resulting from counsel's deficiency.”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Goddard v. State · Luis Gerardo Ortega-Araiza

2. “The fact that an equivocal warning from the trial court is insufficient to categorically eliminate prejudice in every circumstance is not to say, however, that the plea colloquy is meaningless .... Instead, a colloquy containing an equivocal warning from the trial court and an acknowledgment from the defendant contributes to the totality of the circumstances by providing evidence that the defendant is aware of the possibility that a plea could affect his immigration status. In other words, the colloquy required by [Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure] 3.172(c)(8) may refute a defendant’s postconviction claim that he had no knowledge that a plea could have possible immigration consequences; however, it cannot by itself refute a claim that he was unaware of presumptively mandatory consequences.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Goddard v. State

3. “Where a movant has received the standard “may” or “could” deportation warning required by rule 3.172(c)(8), to state a claim for relief under Padilla, a movant must establish the following: (1) that the movant was present in the country lawfully at the time of the plea; (2) that the plea at issue is the sole basis for the movant’s deportation; (3) that the law, as it existed at the time of the plea, subjected the movant to “virtually automatic” deportation; (4) that the “presumptively mandatory” consequence of deportation is clear from the face of the immigration statute; (5) that counsel failed to accurately advise the movant about the deportation consequences of the plea; and (6) that, if the movant had been accurately advised, he or she would not have entered the plea.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Ramirez v. State