Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 305 N.C. 712 - State v. Stevens

State v. Stevens’s Empirical Analysis

1982

Citation profile

86
cited by 86 later decisions
1
states following
May 2019
most recently cited

2 federal appellate · 82 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 86 later decisions — most recently May 2019 · most notably State v. Atkins (1998), State v. Moorman (1987)

2 federal appellate · 82 state decisions

4001982199020002010decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

Relationships

Relies on Cuyler v. Sullivan · McMann v. Richardson · Isserman v. Ethics Committee of Essex County Bar Ass'n · Marzullo v. Maryland · State v. Blackmon

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

  1. “When considering rulings on motions for appropriate relief, we review the trial court's order to determine 'whether the findings of fact are supported by evidence, whether the findings of fact support the conclusions of law, and whether the conclusions of law support the order entered by the trial court.'”
    8 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “The plea, then, was not the result of an informed choice to forego any defense defendant had to obtain potential benefits from pleading guilty. Nor was Mr. Nimocks’ advice to plead guilty ‘based upon the statement of all co-defendants, the statement of petitioner himself, and Nimocks’ conversations with the investigating officers Byrd and Conerly.’ Mr. Nimocks’ counsel that defendant should plead guilty was, by his own testimony, the product of his erroneous assessment of the legal significance of defendant’s own statement, not a careful weighing of defendant’s statement against the statements of others. Since finding number 31, which is crucial to Judge Lee’s ultimate conclusions of law, is not supported by and is contrary to all of the evidence in the case, and since all of the evidence demonstrates that defendant’s plea could not have been knowingly and understandingly made and was the product of ineffective assistance of counsel, my vote is to vacate the plea and remand the matter to Cumberland Superior Court for trial.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. “31. That Stephen H. Nimocks did not advise petitioner that he was guilty of armed robbery merely because he was at the scene with the other participants, but that his advice to the petitioner to plead guilty was based upon the statements of all co-defendants, the statement of petitioner himself, and Nimocks’ conversations with the investigating officers ...”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage

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.