37 Md. App. 459 - Curtis v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

14 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 14 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““(c) When allegation of error deemed to have been waived. — For the purposes of this subtitle, an allegation of error shall be- deemed to be waived when a petitioner could have made, but intelligently and knowingly failed to make, such allegation before trial, at trial, on direct appeal (whether or not said petitioner actually took such an appeal), in any habeas corpus or coram nobis proceeding actually instituted by said petitioner, in a prior petition under this subtitle, or in any other proceeding actually instituted by said petitioner, unless the failure to make such allegation shall be excused because of special circumstances. The burden of proving the existence of such special circumstances shall be upon the petitioner. “When an allegation of error could have been made by a petitioner before trial, at trial, on direct appeal (whether or not said petitioner actually took such an appeal), in any tfabeas corpus or coram nobis proceeding actually instituted by said petitioner, in a prior petition under this subtitle, or in any other proceeding actually instituted by said petitioner, but was not in fact so made, there shall be a rebuttable presumption that said petitioner intelligently and knowingly failed to make such allegation.””

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Curtis v. State · Davis v. State

2. ““3. The issue of ineffective assistance of counsel (trial counsel, counsel on direct appeal and counsel at petitioner’s first post-conviction hearing) has never been raised by petitioner in any prior court case. “4. Petitioner was never advised by trial counsel or by counsel appointed on his prior post-conviction case that petitioner should have raised the issue of ineffective assistance of counsel in his first post-conviction petition. “5. Petitioner was never advised that trial counsel may have been ineffective for his failure to raise the defense of voluntary intoxication as reducing the crime from first degree to second degree murder; nor was petitioner ever advised that trial counsel may have been ineffective for his failure to raise the issue of “diminished responsibility” or for his failure to raise on direct appeal the evidentiary issue dealing with the “double hearsay” testimony of Mary Wedge and Mildred Curtis. “6. Petitioner is a layman with a seventh grade education and an I.Q. of 72 (borderline range of intelligence). Evidence had been introduced at petitioner’s trial that petitioner was a chronic alcoholic who had suffered some brain damage as a result of extended drinking for nineteen (19) years. Petitioner was not aware that he should have raised the issue of ineffective assistance of counsel at his first post-conviction hearing. “7. Petitioner relied entirely on his court-appointed counsel at trial, on direct appeal ... and in his first post-conviction case. ”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. McElroy v. State

3. ““In the first place, the issue, by definition, does not apply to the appellate stage but only to the trial stage.” Id. at 464.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 39 Md. App. 113 - Wilson v. State