22 Ariz. App. 407 - State v. Carr’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

12 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 12 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““Rule 11 is designed to eliminate any need to resort to a later fact-finding proceeding ‘in this highly subjective area.’ Heiden v. United States, supra, 353 F.2d [53], at 55. The Rule ‘contemplates that disputes as to the understanding of the defendant and the voluntariness of his action are to be eliminated at the outset * * Ibid. As the Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit explained in discussing what it termed the ‘persuasive rationale’ of Heiden: ‘When the ascertainment is subsequently made, greater uncertainty is bound to exist since in the resolution of disputed contentions problems of credibility and of reliability of memory cannot be avoided . . . .’ Waddy v. Heer, 383 F.2d 789, 794 (6 Cir. 1967). There is no adequate substitute for demonstrating in the record at the time the plea is entered the defendant’s understanding of the nature of the charge against him.” 394 U.S. at 469 , 89 S.Ct. ' at 1172. (Emphasis theirs).”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 22 Ariz. App. 478 - State v. Rodriguez

2. “Before accepting a plea of guilty or no contest, the court shall address the defendant personally in open court, informing him of and determining that he understands the following: a. The nature of the charge to which the plea is offered; b. The nature and range of possible sentence for the offense to which the plea is offered, including any special conditions regarding sentence, parole, or commutation imposed by statute ; c. The constitutional rights which he foregoes by pleading guilty or no contest, including his right to counsel if he is not represented by counsel; and d. His right to plead not guilty.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Rodriquez

3. “1. The plea was not voluntary because the trial judge did not specifically advise the appellant of his right against self-incrimination during the taking of his plea; 2. The plea was not voluntary because the trial judge failed to determine that the plea was not “the result of force, threats or promises”; and 3. CR-84245, the court failed to determine that there was a factual basis for the plea.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Rodriquez