392 So. 2d 853 - Prince v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

10 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 10 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “"The usual procedure mandated by the Youthful Offender Act is that the court advise the youthful offender of the existence and advantages of the Act before any trial has begun, thus allowing the offender the option of whether to incur the background investigation, or proceed with a trial by jury. § 15-19-1 , et seq. , Code of Alabama 1975; Clemmons v. State , 294 Ala. 746 , 321 So.2d 238 (1975); Johnson v. State , 56 Ala.App. 582 , 324 So.2d 297 , cert. denied , 295 Ala. 407 , 324 So.2d 305 (1975). But where this has not been done, and the offender has proceeded to trial and been found guilty by a jury, a complete reversal has not been mandated by our appellate courts; instead, the cause is remanded to the trial court so that the proper procedures might be implemented.' " Prince v. State , 392 So.2d 853 , 855-56 (Ala.Crim.App. 1980)."”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Ex Parte State of Alabama · Burke v. State

2. “"The Youthful Offender Act vests in the trial judge almost absolute discretion to grant or deny youthful offender status after making an appropriate investigation. McClendon v. State , 341 So.2d 174 (Ala.Cr.App. 1976); Section 15-19-1 , Code of Alabama 1975. This act does not require a full, formal hearing or an investigation by a probation officer in every case. Clemmons v. State , 294 Ala. 746 , 749 , 321 So.2d 238 (1975). While we have no indication of why youthful offender status was denied in this case, the trial judge is not required to state his reasons for denying youthful offender status. This court will not overturn that exercise of discretion except where it affirmatively appears that the decision of the trial judge was arbitrary or made without some examination or investigation of the youthful offender. Watkins v. State , 357 So.2d 156 (Ala.Cr.App.), cert. denied, 357 So.2d 161 (Ala. 1977). It is not for this court to overturn the decision of the trial judge in denying youthful offender status simply because we would not have made that same decision."”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 419 So. 2d 293 - Carthon v. State

3. “"The usual procedure mandated by the Youthful Offender Act is that the court advise the youthful offender of the existence and advantages of the Act before any trial has begun, thus allowing the offender the option of whether to incur the background investigation, or proceed *Page 437 with a trial by jury. § 15-19-1 , et seq. , Code of Alabama 1975; Clemmons v. State , 294 Ala. 746 , 321 So.2d 238 (1975); Johnson v. State , 56 Ala.App. 582 , 324 So.2d 297 , cert. denied , 295 Ala. 407 , 324 So.2d 305 (1975). But where this has not been done, and the offender has proceeded to trial and been found guilty by a jury, a complete reversal has not been mandated by our appellate courts; instead, the cause is remanded to the trial court so that the proper procedures might be implemented."”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 897 So. 2d 434 - Russell v. State