Alston v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1984
Citation profile
4 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 4 later decisions — most recently April 2015
4 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 B. F. Goodrich Co. v. Butler · 56 Ala. App. 704 - English v. State · Dennison v. Claiborne · English v. State · 411 So. 2d 824 - Sheehan v. State
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 4 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“"Nevertheless, this cause must be reversed for another reason. As one of the inducements for appellant's four guilty pleas, the State agreed to recommend, and did recommend, six year sentences to be served concurrently. The trial court did not follow this recommendation. Instead, the trial court sentenced the appellant to a combination of concurrent and consecutive six year sentences which resulted in a total consecutive term of twelve years, rather than the six years recommended by the State. Afterwards, the trial court would not permit the appellant to withdraw his guilty pleas. On the authority of Griswold v. City of Enterprise, 384 So.2d 1219 (Ala.Crim.App.1980); Clark v. State, 408 So.2d 168 (Ala.Crim.App. 1981), cert. denied, 408 So.2d 168 (Ala. 1982); and Arnold v. State, 409 So.2d 947 (Ala.Crim.App.1981), this refusal to permit the appellant to withdraw his guilty pleas after the trial court had refused to follow the bargained for sentencing recommendations by the State constitutes reversible error. See, English v. State, 56 Ala.App. 704 , 325 So.2d 211 , cert. denied, 295 Ala. 401 , 325 So.2d 216 (1976), and cases therein cited."”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Nelson v. State““[T]here is nothing in the federal or state constitution which suggest[s] that a defendant has a right to receive concurrent sentences for multiple offenses ... “ ... ‘The most basic logic and reflection make it apparent that separate offenses merit separate punishments.’... [[Image here]] “... The fact that the trial judge failed to inform the appellant of the possibilities of consecutive sentences does not vitiate the voluntariness of his guilty plea.””
1 later decision 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.