Wilson v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1970
Citation profile
18
cited by 18 later decisions
3
states following
February 1986
most recently cited
18 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on Boykin v. Alabama · McCarthy v. United States · Williams v. Beto · Williams v. State · 163 Tex. Crim. 53 - Alexander 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 18 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““In the concurring opinion in Wilson v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 456 S.W.2d 941, 943 , it was written: ‘This Court has consistently held that the provisions of Article 26.13, Vernon’s Ann.C.C.P., are mandatory and the prerequisites therein set out must be complied with as a condition precedent to the validity of a plea of guilty and that such question may be raised at any time. May v. State, 151 Tex.Cr.R. 534 , 209 S.W.2d 606 ; Alexander v. State, 163 Tex.Cr.R. 53 , 288 S.W.2d 779 ; Braggs v. State, 169 Tex.Cr.R. 405 , 334 S.W.2d 793 ; Williams v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 415 S.W.2d 917 ; Miller v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 424 S.W.2d 430 . See also 97 A.L.R.2d 549 , 584, 586, 602, citing numerous Texas authorities. ‘The “consequences of the plea” as used in the statute has been interpreted as meaning “the punishment provided by law for the offense and the punishment which could be inflicted under his plea.” Alexander v. State, supra. ‘Further, it is clear that the admonishment required by Article 26.13, V. A.C.C.P., must be made manifest of record and that the admonishment cannot be supplied by inference, intendment or presumption. See Article 26.-13, supra, note 4 and cases there cited. ‘It appears that a recital in the judgment substantially in the language of the statute that the defendant was admonished as to the consequences of his plea presumptively establishes that the statutory duty was performed and renders the judgment valid unless the contrary is shown by the record. See McCoy v.”
3 later decisions 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.