Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 21 SO3D 72 - Smith v. State

Smith v. State’s Empirical Analysis

2009

Citation profile

11
cited by 11 later decisions
1
states following
August 2018
most recently cited

11 state decisions

Relationships

Relies on 731 So. 2d 638 - Dade Cty. Sch. Bd. v. Radio Station WQBA · 274 So. 2d 256 - Nelson v. State · 846 So. 2d 472 - Logan v. State · 17 So. 3d 275 - Sheppard v. State · 992 So. 2d 120 - Henyard v. State

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

  1. “[W]hen a represented defendant files a pro se rule 3.170(0 motion based on allegations giving rise to an adversarial relationship such as counsel’s misadviee, misrepresentation, or coercion that led to the entry of the plea ... the trial court should hold a limited hearing at which the defendant, defense counsel, and the State are present. If it appears to the trial court that an adversarial relationship between counsel and the defendant has arisen and the defendant’s allegations are not conclusively refuted by the record, the court should either permit counsel to withdraw or discharge counsel and appoint conflict-free counsel to represent the defendant.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
    e.g. Johnson v. State
  2. “It is well-settled that when a court determines whether an allegation is conclusively refuted by the record, it may rely on the sworn testimony the defendant has given in a plea colloquy. Any allegations that contradict those answers should not be entertained. As long as the defendant's sworn testimony at the plea colloquy is specific enough to refute the allegations made in a post-plea motion, it may form the basis for a determination that the allegation is conclusively refuted by the record.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
    e.g. 255 So. 3d 423 - Dejesus v. State

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.