Spencer v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

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

1. ““I respectfully dissent from the majority’s order dismissing Joe Louis Spencer’s appeal based on its determination that the circuit court did not have jurisdiction to deny Spencer’s motion for reconsideration of his sentence filed pursuant to § 13A-5-9.1, Ala. Code 1975. In reaching this determination, the majority has declined to extend the ‘prisoner-mailbox rule’ to such motions for sentence reconsideration. “Section 13A-5-9.1 was repealed by Act No. 2014-165, p. 472, § 1, Ala. Acts 2014, effective March 13, 2014. In repealing that section, the legislature provided that the act was prospective only and stated: ‘Any case, on the effective date of this act [March 13, 2014], in which a motion filed pursuant to Section 13A-5-9.1, Code of Alabama 1975, is pending in the trial court or is subject to an appeal or pending in an appellate court on appeal from the denial or dismissal of a motion shall not be affected by this act.’ Act No. 2014-165, p. 472, § 2. “Spencer’s motion was received by and filed in the circuit clerk’s office on March 23, 2015. However, in the certificate of service on his petition, Spencer stated that he had placed the motion in the prison mailbox on March 6, 2014, seven days before the repeal of § 13A-5-9.1. “In Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266 , 108 S.Ct. 2379 , 101 L.Ed.2d 245 (1988), the United States Supreme Court created the ‘prisoner-mailbox rule’ in order to protect the rights of incarcerated pro se inmates. Noting the unique circumstances of incarcerat”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent
   e.g. Ex parte Spencer

2. ““[B]y repealing § 13A-5-9.1 and stating that any motions filed prior to the effective date of its repeal would not be affected by its repeal, the Legislature effectively placed a time limitation on motions for sentence reconsideration. Thus, I find the present .situation distinguishable from those described in Ex parte Allen and [N.H. v.] Vickers, [ 865 So.2d 452 (Ala.Civ.App.2003)], Accordingly, I would apply the prisoner-mailbox rule to the present case and therefore disagree with the majority’s conclusion that the circuit court did not have jurisdiction to rule on Spencer’s motion.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent
   e.g. Ex parte Spencer