159 W. Va. 191 - Call v. McKenzie’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

86 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 91 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “When a criminal defendant proposes to enter a plea of guilty, the trial judge should interrogate such defendant on the record with regard to his intelligent understanding of the following rights, some of which he will waive by pleading guilty: 1) the right to retain counsel of his choice, and if indigent, the right to court appointed counsel; 2) the right to consult with counsel and have counsel prepare the defense; 3) the right to a public trial by an impartial jury of twelve persons; 4) the right to have the State prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt and the right of the defendant to stand mute during the proceedings; 5) the right to confront and cross-examine his accusers; 6) the right to present witnesses in his own defense and to testify himself in his own defense; 7) the right to appeal the conviction for any errors of law; 8) the right to move to suppress illegally obtained evidence and illegally obtained confessions; and, 9) the right to challenge in the trial court and on appeal all pre-trial proceedings.”

   6 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Taylor · 186 W. Va. 507 - State v. Hatfield

2. ““A guilty plea, voluntarily and intelligently entered, may not be vacated because the defendant was not advised of every conceivable constitutional plea in abatement he might have to the charge, no matter how peripheral such a plea might be to the normal focus of counsel’s inquiry. And just as it is not sufficient for the criminal defendant seeking to set aside such a plea to show that his counsel in retrospect may not have correctly appraised the constitutional significance of certain historical facts, McMann, supra, it is likewise not sufficient that he show that if counsel had pursued a certain factual inquiry such a pursuit would have uncovered a possible constitutional infirmity in the proceedings.” [ 411 U.S. at 267 , 36 L. Ed. 2d at 243 , 93 S.Ct. at 1608 ]”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 162 W. Va. 212 - State v. Sims

3. “[I]t is not sufficient for the [circuit] court to explain to [a criminal defendant] his[/ her] rights in legal terminology alone, but rather the court should translate formal [terms] ... into language which a lay[person] defendant can understand.... When the court asks the defendant whether he[/ she] understands the ... maximum penalty the court can impose [and the nature of the probationary period actually imposed (ie., the extension of a prior probationary period or the imposition of a separate and distinct subsequent probationary term) ], the defendant should be required to recite back to the court exactly what the ... penalty can be [and the nature of the probation],”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 200 W. Va. 356 - State v. Duke