4 So. 3d 1011 - State v. Roberts’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

11 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 11 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “Rather than making restitution to the victim a part of the Defendant’s sentence, the trial court ordered restitution in the form of a money judgment. The judgment was improper as Defendant had not been given sixty days to pay restitution. Accordingly, the judgment is vacated, and this matter is remanded for the imposition of restitution as part of Defendant’s sentence as contemplated by La.Code Crim.P. art. 883.2.”

   6 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 11 So. 3d 1215 - State v. Granger · 11 So. 3d 666 - State v. Granger

2. “1 ^Defendant contends that the trial court failed to ascertain his ability to make a knowing and intelligent decision to enter a plea of guilty. A valid guilty plea must be a free and voluntary choice by the defendant. A guilty plea will not be considered free and voluntary unless, at the very least, the defendant was advised of his constitutional rights against self-incrimination, to a trial by jury, and to confront his accusers. Boykin v. Alabama, 395 U.S. 238 , 89 S.Ct. 1709 , 23 L.Ed.2d 274 (1969); State v. Kennedy, 42,850 (La.App.2d Cir.1/9/08), 974 So.2d 203 . An express and knowing waiver of those rights must appear on the record, and an unequivocal showing of a free and voluntary waiver cannot be presumed. State v. Minniefield, 43,300, p. 3 (La.App. 2 Cir. 6/4/08), 986 So.2d 227, 230 . Defendant asserts that despite his claim of self-defense, the trial court failed to determine whether he understood his right to continue his plea of not guilty and prove’that he acted in self-defense. The trial court informed Defendant that he had the right to plead not guilty. Defendant does not allege that he did not understand that he had the right to persist in his plea of not guilty. Self-defense was not asserted by Defendant or defense counsel at the time Defendant entered his plea of guilty, and Defendant never filed a motion to withdraw his guilty plea on these grounds. Defendant asserts that although the trial court discussed each Boykin right and read the statute for aggravat”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 79 So. 3d 1175 - State v. Stephan

3. “Aggravated Second Degree Battery is a battery committed with a dangerous weapon when the offender intentionally inflicts serious bodily injury, ok. And a battery is the use of force or violence against somebody without their consent, [y]ou understand that? If you hit me without my consent, if you use force or use a weapon against me or violence, that is a battery. Mr. Nguyen: Yes, Ma'am. Q. You understand that? A. Yes, Ma'am. Q. It becomes a second degree battery when you mean to hurt me pretty bad. Ok? And let me explain or let me read to you what usually means you mean to hurt somebody really bad. If it involves — if you hit them so hard they are unconscious, if they are in a lot [or] extreme physical pain, obvious disfigurement. If you cut somebody with a knife, that is obvious disfigurement, or the loss of an eye, or a bod[il]y function. The loss of an arm or an ear, if you lose any — the use of anything on your body or if you lose an organ. You know what an organ is, a kidney or whatever; or if your mind is not good after the battery. That is serious bodily injury. So do you understand that? A. Yes, Ma'am.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 55 So. 3d 976 - State v. Nguyen