Tilden v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

5 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 5 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “I. THE ORDER OF REVOCATION IN THIS CASE IS EXCESSIVE BASED ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THIS CASE. II. APPELLANT'S ATTORNEY WAS INEFFECTIVE FOR COUNSELING MR. ZAMARRIPA TO STIPULATE TO THE REVOCATION WITHOUT ANY RECOMMENDATION FROM OR AGREEMENT WITH THE STATE. III. APPELLANT'S ATTORNEY WAS INEFFECTIVE FOR FAILING TO ENSURE A PROPER RECORD OF APPELLANT'S PROCEEDINGS WOULD BE AVAILABLE, IF NEEDED, FOR APPELLATE PURPOSES. IV. THE TRIAL COURT'S FAILURE TO PROVIDE A COMPLETE RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS DENIED JOSE ZAMARRIPA DUE PROCESS OF LAW. V. APPELLANT'S NEWLY APPOINTED ATTORNEY WAS INEFFECTIVE FOR FAILING TO SEEK A CONTINUANCE WHEN APPOINTED TO REPRESENT MR. ZAMARRIPA ON THE DAY OF HIS REVOCATION SENTENCING HEARING. VI. APPELLANT WAS DENIED EFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL BY THE DISTRICT COURT AT HIS REVOCATION SENTENCING HEARING WHEN FORCED TO PROCEED WITH AN ATTORNEY WHO HAD JUST BEEN APPOINTED TO HIS CASE THAT DAY AND WAS NOT ADEQUATELY PREPARED TO REPRESENT HIM. VII. THE CUMULATIVE EFFECT OF ALL THESE ERRORS DEPRIVED APPELLANT OF A FAIR TRIAL AND WARRANT RELIEF FOR JOSE ZAMARRIPA.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. ZAMARRIPA v. STATE

2. “Violation of even one condition of probation is sufficient to justify revocation of a suspended sentence.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. ZAMARRIPA v. STATE

3. “The standard of review applied to revocation proceedings is abuse of discretion.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. WELLS v. STATE