Williams v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

85 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 85 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “(a) determining that he understands the nature of the charge against him; (b) informing him by his plea of guilty he is admitting the truth of all facts alleged in the indictment or information or to an offense included thereunder and that upon entry of such plea the court shall proceed with judgment and sentence; (c) informing him that by his plea of guilty he waives his rights to a public and speedy trial by jury, to face the witnesses against him, to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor and to require the state to prove his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt at a trial at which the defendant may not be compelled to testify against himself; (d) informing him of the maximum possible sentence and minimum sentence for the offense charged and of any possible increased sentence by reason of the fact of a prior conviction or convictions, and of any possibility of the imposition of consecutive sentences ; (e) informing him that the court is not a party to any agreement which may have been made between the prosecutor and the defense and is not bound thereby.””

   5 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Neeley v. State · Turman v. State

2. “... it is not material who gives the advisements, so long as the record of the guilty-plea hearing reflects that 'the defendant was advised of and understood the substance of his rights.”

   5 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Johnson v. State · Hutchinson v. State

3. ““. . . The essence of Boykin is that the record must affirmatively show that a defendant entering a guilty plea does so voluntarily and intelligently. Moreover, a plea could not be presumed to be made intelligently and understandingly where the record did not show that defendant knew the federal rights which would be lost by his plea. We conclude that Boykin was concerned primarily with what the record must show and not who must make the record. Of course, there can be no doubt that the trial judge should as a matter of practice inform the defendant of the rights enumerated in Boykin , regardless of other evidence showing that defendant was advised of his rights. But such a rule, however desirable, is not constitutionally mandated, and we decline to create such a requirement as a matter of state law.” Williams v. State, supra, 325 N.E.2d at 832 .”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Howard v. State · 164 Ind. App. 269 - Wyatt v. State