203 N.C. App. 310 - State v. Chery’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

2 federal appellate · 16 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 18 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “Thus, the record is muddled as to whether defendant entered a no contest plea or a guilty plea pursuant to Alford. However, we hold that for purposes of our analysis in the instant case that there is no material difference between a no contest plea and an Alford plea. See State v. Alston, [ 139 N.C.App. 787 ] 534 S.E.2d 666 , 669 (2000) (“[A]n ‘Alford plea’ constitutes a guilty plea in the same way that a plea of nolo contendere or no contest is a guilty plea.” (quotation and citation omitted)); see also Alford, 400 U.S. at 37 [ 91 S.Ct. 160 ] (stating that there is no “material difference between a plea that refuses to admit commission of the criminal act and a plea containing a protestation of innocence. ...”). A defendant enters into an Alford plea when he proclaims he is innocent, but “intelligently concludes that his interests require entry of a guilty plea and the record before the judge contains strong evidence of actual guilt.” Id. Implicit in a plea of no contest is the recognition that although the defendant is unwilling to expressly admit guilt, he is faced with “grim alternatives” and is willing to waive his trial and accept the sentence. Id. at 36 [ 91 S.Ct. 160 ].”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. United States v. Davis · 248 N.C. App. 144 - Hampton v. Scales

2. “Our appellate courts have placed heavy reliance on the length of time between a defendant's entry of the guilty plea and motion to withdraw the plea. The reasoning behind this reliance was articulated in Handy : A swift change of heart is itself strong indication that the plea was entered in haste and confusion; furthermore, withdrawal shortly after the event will rarely prejudice the Government's legitimate interests. By contrast, if the defendant has long delayed his withdrawal motion, and has had the full benefit of competent counsel at all times, the reasons given to support withdrawal must have considerably more force.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 250 N.C. App. 121 - State v. McGill

3. “Although defendant's letter seeking to withdraw his plea was sent to Judge Jenkins only nine days after its entry, the facts of this case do not show that this desire was based upon a swift change of heart as contemplated by Handy . Defendant executed the plea transcript approximately three and a half months prior to the plea hearing. There is no indication in the record that during this time defendant wavered on this decision. It was only after [his co-defendant] was found not guilty of all charges did defendant decide that he wished to withdraw his plea.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 250 N.C. App. 121 - State v. McGill