Smith v. State’s Empirical Analysis
2010
Citation profile
2 district · 50 state decisions
Relationships
Applies 8 U.S.C. § 1182 (§ 212 of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (McCarran-Walter)) · 8 U.S.C. § 1227 (§ 237 of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (McCarran-Walter)) · 8 U.S.C. § 1431 (§ 320 of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (McCarran-Walter))
Relies on Boykin v. Alabama · Hill v. Lockhart · Brady v. United States · Teague v. Lane · Trop v. Dulles
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 54 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“defense counsel may be ineffective in relation to a guilty plea due to professional duties for the representation of their individual clients that set a standard different - and higher - than those traditionally imposed on trial courts conducting plea hearings for defendants about whom the judges often know very little.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissente.g. State v. Ortiz · Alexander v. State“a defendant who is not a United States citizen and can show that his lawyer did not adequately advise him of the risks of deportation resulting from his guilty plea will satisfy the first prong of the Strickland ineffectiveness test-deficient performance. To obtain relief, however, the defendant still must establish the second Strickland prong-prejudice, which in the guilty plea context requires the defendant to show that there is a reasonable probability that, but for counsel's errors, he would not have pleaded guilty and would have insisted on going to trial.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“[D] espite its discussion of the importance of deportation risks to some defendants, in the end the [United States] Supreme Court [in Padilla] did not extend the direct consequences doctrine to that issue, or reject the basic distinction between direct and collateral consequences in determining whether a defendant’s guilty plea was knowingly and voluntarily entered. In the absence of such a binding directive to do so, we decline to do so either.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.