448 So. 2d 445 - Eathorne v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

6 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 6 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “"In our opinion, the record reflects that Eathorne was legally competent when he pled guilty and that he did so in a voluntary and intelligent manner. 'From the rule that a plea must be intelligently made to be valid it does not follow that a plea is vulnerable to later attacks solely because the petitioner or his counsel did not correctly assess every relevant factor which contributed to his decision.' Thundershield v. Solem , 565 F.2d 1018 , 1026 (8th Cir. 1977). In making our determination, we note that the trial judge who accepted Eathorne's guilty plea and sentenced him was also the same judge who presided over the coram nobis hearing. That judge's observation of Eathorne at the guilty plea and coram nobis hearing is entitled to significant weight where the other evidence of his mental condition is conflicting. See United States v. Oliver , 626 F.2d 254 (2nd Cir. 1980)."”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 572 So. 2d 1296 - Wiggins v. State

2. ““Due process requires that an accused be legally competent to plead guilty. Chavez v. United States, 641 F.2d 1253, 1255-56 (9th Cir.1981). The plea must be voluntary and intelligent. Boykin v. Alabama, 395 U.S. 238, 242 , 89 S.Ct. 1709, 1711 , 23 L.Ed.2d 274 (1969). ‘Courts generally have held that the standard of competence to stand trial parallels the standard of competence to plead guilty.’ Twelfth Annual Review of Criminal Procedure, 71 Geo. L.J. 339 , 540, n. 1348 (1982). See also Annot. 31 A.L.R. Fed. 375 (1977). That test is whether the accused has ‘sufficient present ability to consult with his lawyer with a reasonable degree of rational understanding — and whether he has a rational as well as factual understanding of the proceedings against him.’ Dusky v. United States, 362 U.S. 402 , 80 S.Ct. 788 , 4 L.Ed.2d 824 (1960).””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 62 So. 3d 1071 - Roberts v. State

3. ““Here, Eathorne did not prove that his condition had significantly deteriorated between the time he was found competent to stand trial and the time he pled guilty. Unless the circumstances change, an accused is not entitled to a separate determination of his competence to plead guilty after being found competent to stand trial because the same standard applies. United States ex rel. Heral v. Franzen, 667 F.2d 633, 638 (7th Cir.1981). See also Atwell v. State, 354 So.2d 30 (Ala.Cr.App.1977), cert. denied, Ex parte Atwell, 354 So.2d 39 (Ala.1978); Annot. 37 A.L.R. Fed. 356 (1978).””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 62 So. 3d 1071 - Roberts v. State