182 Ind. App. 95 - Collins v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

17 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 17 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “"These two statutes [Ind.Code §§ 85-4.1-1-8 and 835-4.1-1-4], strictly construed and enforced, promote two equally laudable goals. First, they establish an absolute, uniform procedure for the acceptance of guilty pleas. Trial courts are put on notice that all the requirements of the statutes must be complied with. Second, our interpretation of the statutes make appellate review of guilty plea cases much less subjective. All we need determine is whether the statute has been complied with, thereby allowing for summary disposition in many cases. The result is an absolute assurance that defendants' pleas will be accepted only when they are truly knowing, intelligent and voluntary, and a speedy administration of justice on the appellate level. Thus, by our decision, we do not place form over substance; rather, we require strict, formal compliance only as a means of assuring substantive compliance and promoting sound judicial policy." 394 N.E.2d at 218 .”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent
   e.g. Johnson v. State · Payton v. State

2. “"[Wle now hold it necessary for the trial judge to fully advise a defendant of his rights at the time a guilty plea is tendered ... Only when a defendant is seriously considering entering a guilty plea will the advisement be meaningful to him and for the trial judge in determining an intentional and intelligent waiver of known rights. This is not an undue burden to place upon the trial court. The defendant is on the verge of committing years of his life to confinement. The little time necessary for the trial judge to advise a defendant at the time of his plea is a modicum relative to the significant consequences to a defendant." Id. at 606-7 , 358 N.E.2d at 118 .”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent
   e.g. Johnson v. State · McNary v. State

3. “"By failing to ask Collins if his plea was made in response to promises by the police or prosecutor, the court failed to comply with both the Supreme Court's Watson v. State, (1973) 261 Ind. 97 , 300 N.E.2d 354 decision and the mandates of Ind. Code § 35-4.1-1 -4(a). This alone requires our reversal."”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent
   e.g. James v. State · Nash v. State