Clardy v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

10 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 10 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “"Next, appellant urges that the trial court erred in accepting his plea of guilty without having the indictment read to him and without securing a waiver of such reading. He cites and relies upon Article 26.11, V.A.C.C.P., and Johnson v. State, 118 Tex.Cr.R. 291 , 42 S.W.2d 782 . "... "The judgment in the case at bar clearly reflects that after waiver of trial by jury the appellant `was arraigned and in open court pleaded guilty to the charge contained in the indictment.' Such instrument further reflects `The Court, having heard the indictment read, the defendant's plea thereto, the evidence submitted, and the argument of counsel thereon * * *' "... "If the recitations in the judgment and other parts of the record were not correct, then we observe no objection to the approval of the record was offered by the appellant. We further call attention to the provisions of Article 44.24, V.A.C.C.P. (Presumptions on Appeals) which require this Court to presume, among other things, that the defendant was arraigned and that he pleaded to the indictment unless such matter was made an issue in the court below, or unless it affirmatively appears to contrary from the record. See Boening v. State [Tex.Cr.App., 422 S.W.2d 469 ], supra. "We find from what has been said that there has been a compliance with Article 26.11, supra, contrary to appellant's contention." Id. at 536 and 537.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Hardman v. State

2. “Article 1.14, supra, provides as follows: “The defendant in a criminal prosecution for any offense may waive any rights secured him by law except the right of trial by jury in a capital felony case in which the State has made known in open court in writing at least IS days prior to trial that it will seek the death penalty. No case in which the State seeks the death penalty shall be tried until IS days after such notice is given. When the State makes known to the court in writing in open court that it will not seek the death penalty in a capital case, the defendant may enter a plea of guilty, nolo contendere, or not guilty before the court and waive trial by jury as provided.in Article 1.13, and in such case under no circumstances may the death penalty be imposed.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Smith v. State

3. “If the recitations in the judgment and other parts of the record were not correct, then we observe no objection to the approval of the record was offered by the appellant. We further call attention to the provisions of Article 44.24, V.A.C.C.P. (Presumptions on Appeals) which require this Court to presume, among other things, that the defendant was arraigned and that he pleaded to the indictment unless such matter was made an issue in the court below, or unless it affirmatively appears to contrary from the record. See Boening v. State [Tex.Cr.App., 422 S.W.2d 469 ], supra.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Hardman v. State