Gordon v. Nagle’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

4 federal appellate · 1 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 7 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “"In straightforward failure-to-advise cases not involving youth offender status, the Alabama cases have held that failure to advise is a jurisdictional matter that can be raised for the first time on appeal. In Ex parte Rivers , 597 So.2d 1308 (Ala. 1991), the court held that a guilty plea entered by a defendant who had not been advised of his possible minimum and maximum sentences is not knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently given, so that the judgment of conviction must be reversed and the case remanded. Id. at 1310 . The Alabama Supreme Court in Rivers did not use the term 'jurisdiction.' But subsequently the Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals has followed Rivers and interpreted it to mean that failure to advise the defendant as required by Rivers is 'an absolute constitutional requirement' and is a jurisdictional matter that can be raised for the first time on appeal. Sampson v. State , 605 So.2d 846 , 847 (Ala.Crim.App. 1992). Three months later, without reference to Sampson , the Court of Criminal Appeals reiterated that failure to advise of possible minimum and maximum sentences is jurisdictional and can be raised at any time regardless of whether objection was made before the trial judge. Brown v. State , 611 So.2d 1194 , 1197-98 (Ala.Crim.App. 1992). "Thus, in straightforward failure-to-advise cases not involving youth offender status, the Court of Criminal Appeals appears to have continued to follow the Rivers principle with the gloss of its own interpretation th”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Gordon v. Nagle

2. “The most central consequence of youth offender status ... is that the adjudication made pursuant to such status may be considered in determining a sentence to be imposed within the statutory range for a later crime of which defendant is convicted, but it may not be- considered a prior felony conviction as contemplated by the Habitual [Felony] Offender Act, [set forth at Ala.Code § 13A-5-9 et seq.].”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 45 F. Supp. 2d 1305 - United States v. Temmis

3. “"Does the failure to inform an age-qualified defendant of his right to apply for youthful offender status deprive the trial court of jurisdiction to entertain a guilty plea, such that a subsequent challenge to that conviction cannot be barred by the limitations period of Ala.R.Crim.P. 32.2(c)?"”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Gordon v. Nagle