30 So. 3d 400 - Ex Parte McCall’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

11 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. ““[A] hearing need not be held if the petitioner fails to adequately present a material issue. If, however, the court holds a hearing, then Rule 32.9, Ala. R.Crim. P., provides, in pertinent part, as follows: “ ‘(a) Hearing. Unless the court dismisses the petition, the petitioner shall be entitled to an evidentiary hearing to determine disputed issues of material fact .... [[Image here]] “‘(d) Findings of Fact. The court shall make specific findings of fact relating to each material issue of fact presented.’ “Thus, the trial court must first determine whether the petition raises ‘material issue[s] of fact or law ... which would entitle the petitioner to relief under [Rule 32].’ Rule 32.7(d). Once a hearing is held on those issues, the trial court is required to make findings of fact as to each of the material issues upon which the hearing was held. See Ex parte Grau, [ 791 So.2d 345 (Ala.2000) ]. “In this case, McCall petitioned for postconviction relief alleging 12 grounds of ineffective assistance of counsel. The trial court held an evidentiary hearing on the petition. By holding that hearing, the trial court implicitly found that the issues presented were ‘material issued] of law or fact ... which would entitle [McCall] to relief,’ Rule 32.7(d), and, under Rule 32.9(d), the trial court therefore had a responsibility to make findings of fact as to each of those issues. Instead of issuing any such findings, however, the trial court dismissed McCall’s petition on the ground th”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Smith v. State · 38 So. 3d 99 - Andrews v. State

2. ““If the court determines that the petition is not sufficiently specific, or is precluded, or fails to state a claim, or that no material issue of fact or law exists which would entitle the petitioner to relief under this rule and that no purpose would be served by any further proceedings, the court may either dismiss the petition or grant leave to file an amended petition. Leave to amend shall be freely granted. Otherwise, the court shall direct that the proceedings continue and set a date for hearing.””

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Daniel v. State · Smith v. State

3. ““If ... the [circuit] court holds a hearing, then Rule 32,9, Ala. R.Crim. P., provides, in pertinent part, as follows: “ ‘(a). Hearing, Unless the court dismisses the petition, the. petitioner shall be entitled to an evidentiary hearing, to determine disputed issues of material fact.... [[Image here]] “‘(d) Findings of Fact. The court shall make specific findings of fact relating to each material issue of fact presented.’ “Thus, the trial court must first determine whether the petition raises ‘material issue[s] of fact or law ... which'would entitle the petitioner to relief under [Rule 32].’ Rule 32.7(d). Once a hearing is held on' those issues, the trial court is required to make findings of fact as to each of the material issues upon which the hearing was held. See Ex parte Grau, [ 791 So.2d 345 (Ala. 2000) ].””

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