Burns v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1974
Citation profile
40 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 40 later decisions — most recently June 2015 · most notably State v. Jackson (1994), State v. Strauch (1986)
40 state decisions
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
Relationships
Relies on Baker v. State · Winter v. State · State v. Byrd · Allen v. State · Wolfe 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 40 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““Bums’ motion contends he was misled by his court-appointed attorney as well as betrayed by the county attorney. The burden of establishing incompetency of an attorney or ineffective assistance of counsel to the extent necessary to overcome the presumption of regularity of a conviction is upon the petitioner. [Citations omitted.] Mere conclusionary contentions of a petitioner for which no evidentiary basis is stated or appears are not sufficient basis for relief from conviction. [Citation omitted.]” 215 Kan. at 499-500 .”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. State v. Quested · State v. Jackson“Plea bargaining plays an important role in the effective administration of criminal justice. We approved the application of the ABA Standards for Criminal Administration as they relate to plea bargaining in State v. Byrd, 203 Kan. 45 , 453 P.2d 22 [1969]. The standards provide such agreements are not binding upon the sentencing court. No agreement to withhold Burns' past criminal record, even if made, could have bound the county attorney or the sentencing court to those terms. The sentencing judge may and should ask for a pre-sentence report which would include past convictions, regardless of whether the habitual criminal act was to be imposed. [Citation omitted.] The authority of the court in ordering consecutive or concurrent sentences for convictions of two or more offenses at the same or separate times is discretionary with the court. (K.S.A. 1973 Supp. 21-4608, formerly K.S.A. 62-1512.) We find no abuse of discretion in the sentences imposed.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. State v. Quested“[t]he authority of the court in ordering consecutive or concurrent sentences for convictions of two or more offenses at the same time or separate times is discretionary with the court.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. State v. Quested
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.