465 So. 2d 448 - Shula v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1984
Citation profile
10
cited by 10 later decisions
1
states following
November 1992
most recently cited
10 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on Miranda v. State of Arizona Vignera · Johnson v. Zerbst · Kent v. United States · North Carolina v. Butler · Cabrera-Martinez v. United States
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.
“"While an order denying a request for youthful offender treatment need not list or enumerate all the factors considered by the trial judge, it should reflect that some investigation, examination or inquiry was had of the youth before the request was denied. Watkins v. State , 357 So.2d 156 (Ala.Cr.App. 1977), cert. denied, 357 So.2d 161 (Ala. 1978). Although the order of the trial judge does not state that the Report of Youthful Offender Investigation was considered, that Report is contained in the record as Court's Exhibit 1. Because of this and because this issue was not raised in the trial court, we find no error in the denial of the request for youthful offender treatment. "The granting or denial of such a request is a matter in which much by necessity must be left to the discretion of *Page 1268 the trial judge, who has the opportunity to personally observe the youth. McClendon v. State , 341 So.2d 174 , 175 (Ala.Cr.App. 1976), cert. quashed, 341 So.2d 178 (Ala. 1977) ('almost absolute discretion'). While a statement by the trial judge of his reasons for denying youthful offender status would be sufficient to demonstrate the statutory requirement of investigation and examination, Kent v. United States , 383 U.S. 541 , 86 S.Ct. 1045 , 16 L.Ed.2d 84 (1966), we adhere to the principle that the trial judge is not required to state his reasons for denying youthful offender status. Morgan v. State , 363 So.2d 1013 (Ala.Cr.App. 1978); Reese v. State , 381 So.2d 107 (Ala.Cr.App.”
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.