Miller v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

2 federal appellate · 21 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 23 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “So when we decided Padilla , we answered a question about the Sixth Amendment’s reach that we had left open, in a way that altered the law of most jurisdictions.... Many courts, we acknowledged, had excluded advice about collateral matters from the Sixth Amendment’s ambit; and deportation, ... could well be viewed as such a matter.... And however apt that distinction might be in other contexts, it should not exempt from Sixth Amendment scrutiny a lawyer’s advice (or non-advice) about a plea’s deportation risk.....We thus resolved the threshold question before us by breaching the previously chink-free wall between direct and collateral consequences: Notwithstanding the then-dominant view, “Strickland applies to Padilla’s claim.” If that does not count as “breaking] new ground” or “imposing] a new obligation,” we are hard pressed to know what would.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
   e.g. Guardado v. State

2. “(f) Collateral consequences of a plea of guilty, conditional plea of guilty, or plea of nolo contendere. Before the court accepts a plea of guilty, a conditional plea of guilty, or a plea of nolo contendere, the court, the State’s Attorney, the attorney for the defendant, or any combination thereof shall advise the defendant (1) that by entering the plea, if the defendant is not a United States citizen, the defendant may face additional consequences of deportation, detention, or ineligibility for citizenship, ... and (3) that the defendant should consult with defense counsel if the defendant is represented and needs additional information concerning the potential consequences of the plea. The omission of advice concerning the collateral consequences of a plea does not itself mandate that the plea be declared invalid.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
   e.g. Guardado v. State

3. “As we recognized in Denisyuk , we have never expressly adopted Teague , nor do we need to here. Certainly, were we to have adopted Teague as our standard, the resolution of this case would be facile and resolute. In the absence of the stewardship of Teague , though, retroactivity of Padilla really is not the issue, because, as a state court reviewing Miller’s state criminal conviction, we could provide a state remedy for the violations that Miller asserts were one to have existed at that time. In so doing, however, we cannot create a federal remedy denied by the Supreme Court, but must explore whether there is a basis in state law to provide Miller a remedy, beyond that which would be afforded in federal court.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
   e.g. Guardado v. State