Carson v. State’s Empirical Analysis
2010
Citation profile
4 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on 527 So. 2d 1380 - Florida Bar v. Mullins · 500 So. 2d 501 - Williams v. State · 957 So. 2d 600 - Williams v. State · 685 So. 2d 773 - Amend. to Fla. Rules of Appellate Proc. · 572 So. 2d 1368 - Larson v. State
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 4 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“May a court lawfully impose a negotiated sentence that does not exceed the statutory maximum term, but includes terms that the court could not otherwise impose on a defendant without his acquiescence? We think that a trial court has that authority, and we think that the State and the defendant can agree to such terms. Thus, a defendant cannot later collaterally attack his own negotiated sentence.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. LaFave“[t]o allow [a defendant] to accept the benefits of a plea bargain, and then years later collaterally attack his own negotiated sentence, would seriously compromise finality, discourage the use of negotiated pleas in the trial courts, deplete judicial resources, and “discourage the state from entering into future plea bargains with other defendants.””
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. LaFave
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.