Wilson v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

18 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 19 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “COURT: Mr. Wilson, are you satisfied with the legal services and the advice given you by your attorneys ? WILSON: No, sir. COURT: You are not? WILSON: No, sir. COURT: Very well. In what regard? WILSON: I feel like there could have been more done. COURT: I’m sorry? WILSON: I feel like there could have been more done. I don’t think I can receive a fair trial. That’s why I’m taking this plea. COURT: Mr. Wilson, one of the responsibilities that I have is to ensure that you do get a fair trial. WILSON: Yes, sir. COURT: And I will do all within my power to see that that is done. WILSON: Yes, sir. COURT: Now, if you tell me that you are not satisfied with the services that your attorneys have given you, I’m not going to accept your plea. You have just got through telling me that, [sic] WILSON: Yes, sir. I’m not totally satisfied, no, sir I’m not. COURT: Well, based on the circumstances, I assume they have spent time talking with you about the evidence in this case? WILSON: Not much. COURT: Well, all right. Mr. Wilson, I’m returning you to the custody of the [sic] Lee County. This matter will be placed on the docket for trial at a later time. DISTRICT ATTORNEY YOUNG: Your Honor, if we can get with you, we would like to pick a date for a trial of this matter in which we will seek the death penalty.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 81 So. 3d 1067 - Wilson v. State

2. “The United States Supreme Court in Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 , 104 S.Ct. 2052 , 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984), established the standard for assessing whether counsel was ineffective. For a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, a defendant must establish: (1) counsel’s performance fell below an objective standard of reasonableness, and (2) the defense was prejudiced as a result. Strickland, 466 U.S. at 687 , 104 S.Ct. 2052 , 80 L.Ed.2d 674 . In the case of a guilty plea, the second prong of prejudice is shown by proving that the ineffective assistance of counsel affected the outcome of the plea process. Hill v. Lockhart, 474 U.S. 52, 58 , 106 S.Ct. 366, 370 , 88 L.Ed.2d 203 (1985). “Judicial scrutiny of counsel’s performance must be highly deferential.” Strickland, 466 U.S. at 689 , 104 S.Ct. 2052 , 80 L.Ed.2d 674 .”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 81 So. 3d 1067 - Wilson v. State

3. “Simply stated, two unsworn letters and an unsworn itemization of services attached to a motion for compensation hardly rise to the level of being “facts fully apparent from the record” to the extent that we may appropriately address this issue on direct appeal. We do not have competing affidavits 9 from court-appointed trial counsel or other individuals who might shed any light on this issue. Likewise, it is not readily apparent from a review of the record whether Judge Gardner ever saw these letters from Wilson.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 81 So. 3d 1067 - Wilson v. State