Holmes v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

38 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 38 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “[I]f an individual who pleads guilty, having been informed of his right to [apply] for leave to appeal from his conviction and sentence, does not file such an application [ ], a rebuttable presumption arises that he has waived the right to challenge his conviction in a subsequent coram nobis proceeding.”

   5 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Miller v. State · Graves v. State

2. “(1) (i) Except as provided in subparagraph (ii) of this paragraph, an allegation of error is waived when a petitioner could have made but intelligently and knowingly failed to make the allegation ... 4. in an application for leave to appeal a conviction based on a guilty plea; ... (ii) 1. Failure to make an allegation of error shall be excused if special circumstances exist. 2. The petitioner has the burden of proving that special circumstances exist. (2) When a petitioner could have made an allegation of error at a proceeding set forth in (l)(i) of this subsection but did not make an allegation of error, there is a rebuttable presumption that the petitioner intelligently and knowingly failed to make the allegation.”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Miller v. State · State v. Smith

3. “It appears to be the common law rule that there was no time limitation within which to file a petition for a writ of coram nobis, except perhaps laches ... [T]he right to file for coram nobis relief is not unlimited. * * * Laches is a valuable tool for the trial judge in evaluating a petition for coram nobis ... [I]t can prevent the government from being unfairly prejudiced by evidentiary destruction resulting from long, unexcused delay. Unlike waiver, it allows the trial court to consider both the prejudice to the government and the reasons for delay. In balancing the two factors, the trial court has more flexibility to allow writs of coram nobis to proceed in those cases where fairness demands an opportunity to be heard on the matter of post-conviction relief.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent
   e.g. Jones v. State · 184 Md. App. 465 - Moguel v. State