Smith v. Farley’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

39 federal appellate · 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 55 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “[b]ecause a person currently serving a sentence that was enhanced on the basis of a prior conviction is still in custody [on the enhancing conviction], he may challenge the enhancing conviction as constitutionally invalid even though that prior conviction's custodial term has expired.”

   6 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Billy Kenneth Moore v. Al C. Parke · Gregory E. Douglas v. D. Bruce Jordan

2. “. We believe such review [of enhancing state convictions]’ should generally be available unless, [sic] a defendant has already exercised any earlier opportunity for a full and fair state collateral review, or review would be inconsistent with existing doctrines determining the circumstances under which such collateral review is available. Because suck a challenge is against the new use of a prior conviction —-i.e. a challenge to the state’s enhancement pro cedures — a defendant’s failure to use an initial opportunity to obtain review of a state conviction —in a direct appeal or collaterally, while still serving the sentence— should not bar him from obtaining later indirect review of the conviction now being used in a wholly new manner.... Unless a defendant has already used his initial collateral review for his prior conviction, we believe that he ought to have a later opportunity to obtain such a review, in at least some forum, of the state court’s use of the prior conviction to enhance a sentence for a new crime.... [IJf a defendant does not have access to a fair procedure in a state court affording him a review, on the merits, of the constitutionality of a prior conviction after it has been incorporated into a new, enhanced sentence, a federal court may properly grant him such review.”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
   e.g. Sanders v. United States · 958 F. Supp. 349 - Bernal v. Helman

3. “if a defendant does not have access to a fair procedure in a state court affording him a review, on the merits, of the constitutionality of a prior conviction after it has been incorporated into a new, enhanced sentence, a federal court may properly grant him such review.”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
   e.g. Turner v. Farley · Tredway v. Farley