Tabor v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

34 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 34 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “With the approval of the court and the consent of the prosecuting attorney, a defendant may enter a conditional plea of guilty or nolo contendere, reserving in writing the right, on appeal from the judgment, to review of an adverse determination of a pretrial motion to suppress evidence. If the defendant prevails on appeal, he shall be allowed to withdraw his plea.”

   4 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 81 Ark. App. 178 - Hill v. State · Ray v. State

2. “The law is well settled that a defendant ordinarily does not have a right to appeal a guilty plea except as provided in Rule 24.3(b). See Ark. R. App. P.- — Crim. 1; Hill v. State, 318 Ark. 408 , 887 S.W.2d 275 (1994). Scalco v. City of Russellville, 318 Ark. 65 , 883 S.W.2d 813 (1994); Eckl v. State, 312 Ark. 544 , 851 S.W.2d 428 (1993). Appeals from guilty pleas are typically dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. Scalco v. City of Russellville, supra. Rule 24.3(b) provides the only procedure for an appeal from a guilty plea. Eckl v. State, supra. But if the express terms of Rule 24.3(b) are not complied with, the appellate court acquires no jurisdiction to hear an appeal from a conditional plea. Bilderback v. State, 319 Ark. 643 , 893 S.W.2d 780 (1995); Scalco v. City of Russellville, supra; Noble v. State, 314 Ark. 240 , 862 S.W.2d 234 (1993). Accordingly, this court requires strict compliance with Rule 24.3(b) to convey appellate jurisdiction. Burress v. State, 321 Ark. 329 , 902 S.W.2d 225 (1995).”

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

3. “In the case now before us, there was no contemporaneous writing by Tabor reserving his right to appeal. Hence, Rule 24.3(b) was not strictly followed, and the Court of Appeals obtained no jurisdiction of the matter. Without jurisdiction, the Court of Appeals had no authority to remand the case to the trial court to settle the record. Moreover, the subsequent order by the trial court with the attached signed plea statement by Tabor entered after remand cannot breathe life into a moribund appeal where no jurisdiction originally vested.”

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