452 So. 2d 508 - Ex Parte Edwards’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

1 federal appellate · 45 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 46 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “"After carefully considering petitioner's arguments, we conclude that the Court of Criminal Appeals correctly relied on the Seventh Circuit's interpretation of Burks in Dickenson v. Israel, 644 F.2d 308 (7th Cir.1981). The circumstances in Dickenson are similar to those in the present case. There was insufficient evidence to support a conviction for armed robbery. The court found, however, that there was sufficient evidence to support a conviction for a lesser degree of robbery. The case was remanded to the trial court, judgment was entered on the lesser included offense, and the defendant was resentenced accordingly. In Dickenson , the jury had been instructed on the elements of armed robbery and the lesser included charge of robbery. In the present case, the jury was properly charged on the lesser included offense of manslaughter. "The trial court's opinion, reported as Dickenson v. Israel, 482 F.Supp. 1223 (E.D.Wis.1980), was adopted as the opinion of the Seventh Circuit, and the following authority was cited in support of its decision: "`State and federal appellate courts have long exercised the power to reverse a conviction while at the same time ordering the entry of judgment on a lesser-included offense. See, e.g., United States v. Cobb, 558 F.2d 486, 489 (8th Cir.1977); Austin v. United States, 127 U.S.App.D.C. 180, 191-192 , 382 F.2d 129, 140-142 (D.C.Cir.1967); Luitze v. State, 204 Wis. 78 , 234 N.W. 382 (1931). The usual situation in which this occurs is when there”

   4 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Ex Parte Roberts · Campbell v. State

2. “".... since the jury returned a verdict on the higher degree, it found the existence of every element of the lesser included offense.... [S]tate and federal appellate courts have inherent authority to reverse a conviction while at the same time ordering an entry of judgment on a lesser included offense.”

   4 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Utley v. State · Pardue v. State

3. “"`The same type of procedure approved by the Seventh Circuit is followed by most state courts that have faced the issue. See Searcy v. State, 163 Ga.App. 528 , 295 S.E.2d 227 (1982) [Evidence was insufficient to support a conviction on two felony counts of theft by receiving stolen property, but sufficient to sustain a misdemeanor charge—the proper remedy was to remand to the trial court for proper sentencing under the lesser-included offense.]; Beasley v. State, 394 So.2d 201 (Fla.App.1981) [Evidence was insufficient to support a conviction of grand theft, but sufficient to sustain the lesser-included offense of petty theft—the case was remanded for proper sentencing on the lesser-included offense.]; State v. Byrd, 385 So.2d 248 (La.1980) (wherein the Supreme Court noted that ordering entry of judgment of guilty on lesser-included offense accords with overwhelming treatment of problem by other jurisdictions); State v. Coston, [ 182 Conn. 430 ] 438 A.2d 701 (1980); State v. Plakke, [ 31 Wash.App. 262 ] 639 P.2d 796 (1982).' "We further conclude that the Court of Criminal Appeals was correct in finding that Coleman [ v. State, 373 So.2d 1254 (Ala.Crim.App.1979)], and Watkins [ v. State, 389 So.2d 186 (Ala.Crim.App.1980)], are not controlling in this case. That court stated that `[t]hese two Alabama cases deal with whether a defendant may be retried after a finding of insufficient evidence; they do not specifically address the issue of remanding the case for proper sentencing.'”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Ex Parte Roberts