Williams v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

11 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 11 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “Through formal pleadings filed three days in advance of trial, the State informed Williams of its intent to seek enhanced punishment under one of Mississippi’s recidivist statutes, [s]ection 99-19-81. The State’s motion specifically provided the details of the prior convictions which would be presented to the trial judge for sentence enhancement (subject to a conviction for the crime charged in the indictment), including the cause numbers, dates, and courts in which they were obtained. Absent an argument as to why: Williams’s notice was inadequate, we cannot say, based on the record, that the State failed to provide adequate notice of its intent to seek enhanced punishment for Williams as a recidivist under [s]ection 99-19-81.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Timothy Rice v. State of Mississippi

2. “All indictments may be amended as to form but not as to the substance of the offense charged. Indictments may also be amended to charge the defendant as a[ ] habitual offender or to elevate the level of the offense where the offense is one which is subject to enhanced punishment for subsequent offenses and the amendment- is to assert prior offenses justifying such enhancement.... Amendment shall be allowed only if the defendant is afforded a fair opportunity to present a defense and is not unfairly surprised.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Deldrick Lamont Carroll v. State of Mississippi

3. “[A]dequate notice is achieved through formal pleadings[,] which include the specific amendment to be offered and which are filed sufficiently in advance of trial to ensure that a defendant will have a fair opportunity to present a defense and will not be unfairly surprised. Whether notice of a possible enhanced sentence was given sufficiently in advance of trial should be considered on a case-by-case basis.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Mark Atkinson v. State of Mississippi