41 So. 3d 1273 - State v. Stevenson’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

7 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 7 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “The “best interest” or Alford plea, which derives from the United States Supreme Court case of North Carolina v. Alford, 400 U.S. 25 , 91 S.Ct. 160 , 27 L.Ed.2d 162 (1970), is one in which the defendant pled guilty while maintaining his innocence. In Alford , the Supreme Court ruled that a defendant may plead guilty, without forgoing his protestations of innocence, if “the plea represents a voluntary and intelligent choice among the alternative courses of action open to defendant,] ... especially where the defendant was represented by competent counsel whose advice was that the plea would be to the defendant’s advantage.” Id., 400 U.S. at 81 , 91 S.Ct. at 164 ; State v. McCoil, 2005-658 (La.App. 5th Cir.02/27/06), 924 So.2d 1120 . In a case involving an Alford plea, the record must contain “strong evidence of actual guilt.” Id., 400 U.S. at 38 , 91 S.Ct. at 167 ; State v. McCoil, supra;”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 105 So. 3d 999 - State v. Fregia · 63 So. 3d 1185 - State v. J.S.

2. “Stevenson claims that despite the trial court’s conclusion that there was sufficient evidence to support the charge, the trial court was presented with nothing on which to base the conclusion. The record reflects that Stevenson clearly admitted to the misdemeanor crime of theft of utilities, but he denied the felony offense of criminal damage to property with the intent to defraud, even though he pled guilty to the charge. Further, the recitation of the facts by the prosecution made no mention of damage to property, but only mentioned the theft of electricity. No facts were given to support any of the necessary elements of the charge to which the plea was being entered, criminal damage to property with the intent to defraud. Further, the trial court did not go over the elements of the offense to which he was pleading, and instead, merely asked Stevenson if he understood he was pleading guilty to that crime. [[Image here]] ... [A] review of the transcript in light of Alford indicates that there is not enough evidence that Stevenson’s guilty plea, coupled with the protestation of innocence, was based on a significant factual basis and was knowing and voluntary. Therefore, we conclude that Stevenson’s conviction should be reversed and the matter remanded to give Stevenson the opportunity to withdraw his guilty plea to the felony offense. See State v. Romano, 627 So.2d 766 (La.App. 2d Cir.1993). Further, in light of this determination, a discussion of Stevenson’s assignment of er”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 71 So. 3d 1020 - State v. Guilbeau · 71 So. 3d 1010 - State v. Guilbeau

3. “[T]he standard under Alford is not whether the state may prevail at trial by establishing the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt and negating all possible defenses, but rather whether the strength of the factual basis, coupled with the other circumstances of the plea, reflect that the plea “represents a voluntary and intelligent choice among the alternative[s].” Id. 400 U.S. at 31 , 91 S.Ct. at 164 .”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 105 So. 3d 999 - State v. Fregia · 63 So. 3d 1185 - State v. J.S.