Stallworth 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 12 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “' “[i]f the court determines that the petition is not sufficiently specific, or is precluded, or fails to state a claim, or that no material issue of fact or law exists which would entitle the petitioner to relief under this rule and that no purpose would be served by any further proceedings.... ””

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Morrissette v. State · Calhoun v. State

2. “" 'A trial court may summarily dismiss a post-conviction petition [on a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel] when it is clear upon the face of the petition itself or the exhibits or material from prior proceedings that there are no facts upon which the petitioner could prevail. Robertson v. State , 669 So.2d 11 (Miss. 1996). See also Taylor v. State , 782 So.2d 166 , 168 (¶ 4) (Miss. Ct. App. 2000).' " Fairley v. State , 812 So.2d 259 , 262 (Miss. Ct. App. 2002). 'A petitioner's failure to "show how, but for the attorneys' errors, the results of the proceedings would have been different" justifies a district court's decision to summarily dismiss the ineffective assistance of counsel claim.' Everett v. State , 757 N.W.2d 530 , 535 (N.D. 2008) (quoting Hughes v. State , 639 N.W.2d 696 , 699 (N.D. 2002) ). '[F]ailing to introduce additional mitigation evidence that is only cumulative of that already presented does not amount to ineffective assistance.' Jalowiec v. Bradshaw , 657 F.3d 293 , 319 (6th Cir. 2011) (citing Nields v. Bradshaw , 482 F.3d 442 , 454 (6th Cir. 2007) ). " ' "[I]n order to establish prejudice, the new evidence that a [postconviction] petitioner presents must differ in a substantial way-in strength and subject matter-from the evidence actually presented at sentencing." Hill v. Mitchell , 400 F.3d 308 , 319 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, 546 U.S. 1039 , 126 S.Ct. 744 , 163 L.Ed.2d 582 (2005). In other cases, we have found prejudice because the new mitigating”

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

3. ““Further, the presumption that counsel performed effectively ‘“is like the ‘presumption of innocence’ in a criminal trial,” ’ and the petitioner bears the burden of disproving that presumption. Hunt v. State, 940 So.2d 1041, 1069 (Ala.Crim.App.2005) (quoting Chandler v. United States, 218 F.3d 1305, 1314, n. 15 (11th Cir.2000) (en banc)). ‘Never does the government acquire the burden to show competence, eyen when some evidence to the contrary might be offered by the petitioner.’ Jd. ‘ “ ‘An ambiguous or , silent record is, not sufficient to disprove the strong and continuing presumption [of effective representation]. Therefore, “where the record is incomplete or unclear about [counsel]’s actions, [a court] will presume that he did what he should have done, and that he exercised reasonable professional judgment.” ’ ” ’ Hunt, 940 So.2d at 1070-71 (quoting Grayson v. Thompson, 257 F.3d 1194, 1218 (11th Cir.2001), quoting in turn Chandler, 218 F.3d at 1314 n. 15, quoting, in turn Williams v. Head, 185 F.3d 1223 , 1228 (11th Cir.1999)). Thus, to overcome the strong presumption of effectiveness, a Rule 32 petitioner must, at his evidentiary hearing, question trial counsel regarding his or her actions and reasoning. See, e.g., Broadnax v. State, 130 So.3d 1232, 1255-56 (Ala.Crim.App.2013) (recognizing that ‘[i]t is extremely difficult, if not impossible, to prove a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel without questioning counsel about the specific claim, especially when the' c”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
   e.g. Reeves v. State