162 Ind. App. 576 - Thurman v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

18 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 18 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““SECTION 1. Remedy-To whom available-Conditions. (a) Any person who has been convicted of, or sentenced for, a crime by a court of this state, and who claims: (1) That the conviction or the sentence was in violation of the Constitution of the United States or the constitution or laws of this state; (2) that the court was without jurisdiction to impose sentence; (3) that the sentence exceeds the maximum authorized by law, or is otherwise erroneous; (4) that there exists evidence of material facts, not previously presented and heard, that requires vacation of the conviction or sentence in the interest of justice; (5) that his sentence has expired, his probation, parole or conditional release unlawfully revoked, or he is otherwise unlawfully held in custody or other restraint; (6) that the conviction or sentence is otherwise subject to collateral attack upon any ground of alleged error heretofore available under any common law, statutory or other writ, motion, petition, proceeding, or remedy; may institute at any time a proceeding under this rule to secure relief. (b) This remedy is not a substitute for a direct appeal from the conviction and all available steps including those under Post-Conviction Remedy Rule 2 should be taken to perfect such an appeal. Except as otherwise provided in this rule., it comprehends and takes the place of all other common law, statutory, or other remedies heretofore available for challenging the validity of the conviction or sentence and it shall b”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 162 Ind. App. 693 - Day v. State

2. “The section of the Act with which we are here concerned deals with rehabilitative treatment after conviction and is wholly couched in terms of such treatment as a rehabilitative process taking place during probation. One may not be simultaneously on probation and serving an executed sentence. Before one may be placed on probation, his sentence must be suspended. See, State ex rel. Gash v. Morgan County Superior Court (1972), Ind., [ 258 Ind. 485 ] 283 N.E.2d 349 . We therefore conclude that the treatment contemplated by § 16-13-6.1-18 may take place only if execution of a sentence otherwise free from error, be suspended and the applicant for treatment be placed on probation.”

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