43 Ala. App. 450 - Aaron v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1966
Citation profile
23 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 31 later decisions (2 by the Supreme Court) — most recently May 1983 · most notably North Carolina v. Pearce (1969), 366 So. 2d 336 - Summers v. State (1978)
23 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 Gideon v. Wainwright · Townsend v. Sain · Ex Parte Milligan · Dowd v. United States Cook · Cochran v. Kansas
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 31 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““Moreover, we do not think that Alabama affords, after motion for new trial wherein the trial judge’s power over judgment is kept alive, any post conviction remedy to assert that a sentence is invalid because of a claim of excessiveness if the second sentence does not go beyond the statutory limit. Isbell v. State, 42 Ala.App. 498 , 169 So.2d 27 . Our Supreme Court has failed to adopt any general rule that our remedy of coram nobis automatically assimilates all rights imposed on state trials by the Fourteenth Amendment. See Wilson, Federal Habeas Corpus and the State Court Criminal Defendant, 19 Vand.L.Rev. 741. "It is equally available to deduce that Aaron’s second sentence of five years came from subtracting the time served on the first sentence as that the trial judge on his second arraignment used, as it were, a grab bag with twenty slips (one for each of the twenty possible years) and 'by blind chance took out a ticket calling for five years. We resolve against the latter as ignoratio elenchi and hence conclude there is no excess of jurisdiction. “This question of power is the only consideration open on habeas corpus. Ex parte Tanner, 219 Ala. 7 , 121 So. 423 . A patently erroneous sentence merely voidable is reviewable otherwise. See Ex parte Jenkins, 38 Ala.App. 117 , 76 So.2d 858 ; Thomas v. State, 40 Ala.App. 697 , 122 So.2d 535 . In Isbell v. State, 42 Ala. App. 498 , 169 So.2d 27 , a coram nobis appeal, we affirmed though the punishment which led to original senten”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage““Habeas corpus ad subjiciendum is ‘the just and efficacious writ’ (III Bl.Con. 131) which our Constitution, § 17, puts beyond suspension. Yet, it is no mere jumble of post conviction archeological tools to explore willy nilly the bones of old criminal trials .... ” Aaron v. State, 43 Ala.App. 450 , 192 So.2d 456, 458 (1966)”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage
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.