29 So. 3d 256 - Hunter v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

12 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 12 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “Rule 3.851(f)(5)(B) permits the denial of a successive postconviction motion without an evidentiary hearing “[i]f the motion, files, and records in the case conclusively show that the movant is entitled to no relief.” Because a court’s decision whether to grant an evidentiary hearing on a rule 3.851 motion is ultimately based on written materials before the court, its ruling is tantamount to a pure question of law, subject to de novo review. See State v. Coney, 845 So.2d 120, 137 (Fla.2003) (holding that “pure questions of law” that are discemable from the record “are subject to de novo review”). In reviewing a tidal court’s summary denial of postconviction relief, this Court must accept the defendant’s allegations as true to the extent that they are not conclusively refuted by the record. Rutherford v. State, 926 So.2d 1100, 1108 (Fla.2006) (citing Hodges v. State, 885 So.2d 338, 355 (Fla.2004)). The summary denial of a newly discovered evidence claim will be upheld if the motion is legally insufficient or its allegations are conclusively refuted by the record. McLin v. State, 827 So.2d 948, 954 (Fla.2002) (citing Foster v. State, 810 So.2d 910, 914 (Fla.2002)).”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 183 So. 3d 342 - Robert Joe Long v. State of Florida

2. “[a] Giglio claim alleges that a prosecutor knowingly presented false testimony against the defendant. To establish a Giglio violation, it must be shown that: (1) the testimony given was false; (2) the prosecutor knew the testimony was false; and (3) the statement was material. Under Giglio , where the prosecutor knowingly uses perjured testimony, or fails to correct what the prosecutor later learns is false testimony, the false evidence is material if there is any reasonable likelihood that the false testimony could have affected the judgment of the jury.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. LOVE v. the STATE.

3. “be of such nature that it would probably produce an acquittal on retrial.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 238 So. 3d 699 - Ernest D. Suggs v. State of Florida