State v. King’s Empirical Analysis
1987
Citation profile
14 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 14 later decisions — most recently June 2011
14 state decisions
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
Relationships
Relies on Boykin v. Alabama · 1 Cal. 3d 122 - In Re Tahl · ITT Gilfillan v. Clayton · 66 Cal. 2d 606 - In Re Smiley · Commonwealth Ex Rel. West v. Rundle
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.
“[a] defendant seeking to set aside a prior conviction obtained as a result of the entry of a guilty plea must initially make a prima facie showing that the guilty plea was constitutionally infirm; only when the defendant has satisfied this initial evidentiary requirement is the prosecution required to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the guilty plea did not violate constitutional due process standards.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Loop · Stuck v. Leapley“Regardless of what principal [sic] of law is applied in direct appeals, we hold that when a collateral attack is made on a guilty plea for failure of the district court to literally comply with new Rule 11, the defendant must show prejudice in order to qualify for § 2255 relief. In the absence of a fundamental defect which inherently results in the miscarriage of justice, or an omission inconsistent with the demands of fair procedure, relief cannot be given in a collateral attack on a guilty plea conviction based on failure of Rule 11 compliance when the plea was taken.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Richards“Before accepting a plea of guilty or nolo contendere a court must address the defendant personally in open court and inform him of, and determine that he understands, the following: (4) That if he pleads guilty or nolo contendere there will not be a further trial of any kind, so that by pleading guilty or nolo contendere he waives the right to a trial, the right to confront and cross-examine witnesses against him, and the right riot to be compelled to incriminate himself. (Emphasis supplied).”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Logan v. Solem
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.