397 So. 2d 211 - Holley v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

2 federal appellate · 57 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 60 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “"(ii) At a reasonable time prior to the hearing the defendant shall be given notice of the prior conviction or convictions upon which the State intends to proceed."”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 423 So. 2d 335 - George v. State · 419 So. 2d 270 - Livingston v. State

2. “"In Oyler v. Boyles , 368 U.S. 452 , 82 S.Ct. 501 [ 7 L.Ed.2d 446 ], the United States Supreme Court stated: `[T]he determination of whether one is an habitual criminal is "essentially independent" of the determination of guilt on the underlying substantive offense . . . "it is a distinct issue, and it may appropriately be the subject of separate determination." . . . [D]ue process does not require advance notice that the trial on the substantive offense will be followed by an habitual criminal proceeding.' "Therefore, `advance notice' of the State's intention to proceed against Holley as a recidivist prior to his trial for the `substantive offense' which triggers the operation of the Alabama Habitual Felony Offender Act, supra, was not required. The Supreme Court in Oyler v. Boyles , supra, held that, although due process does not require notice prior to trial on the `substantive offense,' a defendant must have `reasonable notice,' and an opportunity to be heard relative to the recidivist charge, and the assistance of counsel."”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 401 So. 2d 251 - Smith v. State · 423 So. 2d 335 - George v. State

3. ““In our system of government the Alabama legislature makes the law, the governor executes it and the courts construe and enforce the law. The legislature alone is given the authority to fix the maximum and minimum punishment for all crimes. No discretionary power is given to the courts in this respect unless it be conferred by law. Under the mandate found in § 13A-5-9(c)(3), a criminal defendant convicted of three felonies who commits a subsequent felony must be punished by imprisonment for life without the benefit of parole. No inherent power exists in the courts to modify statutes in this respect, even where exceptional circumstances or cases exist. “In our judgment, the Alabama Habitual Felony Offender Act, Code of Alabama, 1975, is not unconstitutional because it does not provide for the consideration of any mitigating circumstances involving the appellant recidivist.””

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Robinson v. State · Harlin Phillip Seritt, Jr. v. State of Alabama