Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 209 So. 3d 143 - State v. Sanders

209 So. 3d 143 - State v. Sanders’s Empirical Analysis

2016

Citation profile

2
cited by 2 later decisions
1
states following
January 2019
most recently cited

2 state decisions

Relationships

Relies on Anders v. California · McCoy v. Court of Appeals of Wisconsin, District 1 · 573 So. 2d 528 - State v. Benjamin · 704 So. 2d 241 - State v. Jyles · 653 So. 2d 1176 - State v. Reed

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

  1. “When appointed counsel has filed a brief indicating that no non-frivolous issues and no ruling arguably supporting an appeal were found after a conscientious review of the record, Anders requires that counsel move to withdraw. This motion will not be acted on until this court performs a thorough independent review of the record after providing the appellant an opportunity to file a brief in his or her own behalf. This court's review of the record will consist of (1) a review of the bill of information or indictment to insure the defendant was properly charged; (2) a review of all minute entries to insure the defendant was present at all crucial stages of the proceedings, the jury composition and verdict were correct and the sentence is legal; (3) a review of all pleadings in the record; (4) a review of the jury sheets; and (5) a review of all transcripts to determine if any ruling provides an arguable basis for appeal. Under C.Cr.P. art. 914.1(D) this Court will order that the appeal record be supplemented with pleadings, minute entries and transcripts when the record filed in this Court is not sufficient to perform this review.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. “'assure the court that the indigent defendant's constitutional rights have not been violated.' McCoy [ v. Court of Appeals of Wisconsin , 486 U.S. [429] at 442, 108 S.Ct. [1895] at 1903, 100 L.Ed.2d 440 [ (1988) ].”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage

How this case has been treated — in progress

Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.