180 Md. App. 693 - Rivera v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

14 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 14 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “Possible deportation is not one of “the [direct] consequences of the plea,” see Yoswick v. State, 347 Md. 228, 238-41 , 700 A.2d 251, 256-57 (1997), about which the court is directed, by Rule 4-242(c), to inquire when a guilty plea is tendered. See Daley v. State, 61 Md.App. 486 , 487 A.2d 320 (1985).”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Miller v. State · Miller v. State

2. “1) The grounds for challenging the criminal conviction must be of a constitutional, jurisdictional or fundamental in character. 2) A presumption of regularity attaches to the criminal case, and the burden of proof is on the coram nobis petitioner. 3) The coram nobis petitioner must be suffering or facing significant collateral consequences from the conviction. 4) Basic principles of waiver are applicable to issues raised in coram nobis proceedings. Similarly, where an issue has been finally litigated in a prior proceeding, and there are no intervening changes in the applicable law or controlling case law, the issue may not be re-litigated in a coram nobis action. Therefore, the same body of law concerning waiver and final litigation of an issue which is applicable under the Maryland Post Conviction Procedure Act is applicable to a coram nobis proceeding challenging a criminal conviction. 5) One is not entitled to challenge a criminal conviction by a coram nobis proceeding if another statutory or common law remedy is then available. Accordingly, the expanded coram nobis remedy to challenge a criminal conviction will ordinarily be available only to a person who, based on the conviction, is not incarcerated and not on parole or probation.”

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

3. “I’ve made up a set of documents which I would eventually like to be incorporated in the court file, in a confidential sealed envelope, that deal with our plea negotiations. Because they set forth quite a large number of terms which we have all carefully worked out, and thought about, in this matter. * * * * A lot of this is because of immigration consequences, and the record should reflect that my client is a permanent resident, and that some of the terms of this plea have been worked out in terms, because of his potential immigration consequences.”

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