State v. Mora’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

7 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. “made no inquiry into whether [the defendant] had read, understood, and acknowledged”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Smith · 2003 UT App 212 - State v. Lehi

2. “affidavit was not properly incorporated into the record”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Smith · 2003 UT App 212 - State v. Lehi

3. “44 Second, the reasoning of the district court is, in part, simply a reiteration of its finding that the trial judge strictly complied with rule 11(e) because the record indicated that Mr. Lovell had past experience with the criminal justice system. We explained in Part I of this opinion why this analysis is unavailing. Our strict compliance standard already allows examination of other record proceedings before the trial court that were properly incorporated into the plea colloquy to determine whether the rule l1(e) concepts were clearly and unequivocally communicated to the defendant. Verbatim recitation of the rights listed in rule 11(e) is not required, so long as the defendant was clearly and unequivocally informed of the rights he was waiving during the eriminal proceeding in which he pled guilty. We have already rejected the concept that a mere mention of past trial experience in the record conclusively demonstrates that the defendant was aware of all of his rule 11(e) rights. Pointing to a defendant's past experience with the criminal justice system, without more, is insufficient to rebut the presumption of harm that arises when a rule 11(e) violation occurs. Additionally, we have consistently stated that in " 'a direct-appeal from denial of a motion to withdraw a guilty plea, ... failure to strictly comply with [rule 11] would be grounds for reversal'”

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