Sotelo v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

3 federal appellate · 31 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 34 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “the evidence as a whole was such that it leads unerringly and unmistakably to a decision in his favor; that is, one opposite to that reached by the trial court.”

   8 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Lucas v. State · German v. State

2. “In Magley v. State, (1975) 263 Ind. 618 , 335 N.E.2d 811 , the appellate approach in dealing with this issue was presented: “Counsel is presumed to have prepared and executed his client’s defense effectively. State v. Irvin, (1973) 259 Ind. 610 , 291 N.E.2d 70 ; Robbins v. State, (1971) 257 Ind. 273 , 274 N.E.2d 255 . This presumption is rationally grounded in the educational and other requirements for the admission to the practice of law, but is rebuttable by strong and convincing proof. Robbins v. State, supra. In resolving the issue, a court should consider the totality of the circumstances surrounding counsel’s pretrial preparation and the actual conduct of the trial. Lowe v. State, (1973) 260 Ind. 610 , 298 N.E.2d 421 ; Blackburn v. State, (1973) 260 Ind. 5 , 291 N.E.2d 686 ; Sargeant v. State, (1973) 157 Ind.App. 173 , 299 N.E.2d 219 . Perfunctory representation is not enough. Wilson v. State, (1943) 222 Ind. 63 , 51 N.E.2d 848 ; Castro v. State, (1925) 196 Ind. 385 , 147 N.E. 321 . Counsel must have reasonable time for pre-trial preparation. Hartman v. State, (1973) 155 Ind.App. 199 , 292 N.E.2d 293 . Deliberate choices made by counsel for some contemplated tactical or strategic reason which turn out to be detrimental to the client’s cause do not establish ineffective representation. Henry v. Mississippi, (1965) 379 U.S. 443 , 85 S.Ct. 564 , 13 L.Ed.2d 408 ; Lowe v. State, supra.” 263 Ind. at 621 , 335 N.E.2d at 814 .”

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

3. “This statement is also initialed by each defendant. The trial judge informed the defendants of the maximum possible sentence of thirty years and the minimum of ten years and of the court's authority to impose consecutive sentences. In a post-conviction hearing, the burden is on the petitioner to establish his grounds for relief by a preponderance of the evidence, Ind.R.P.C. 1, § 5; and on appeal from an adverse judgment he must satisfy this Court that”

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