Ex Parte Battenfield’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

36 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 36 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““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.”

   5 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Bosworth v. State · Jorden v. State

2. “"If the defendant pleads guilty, or enters a plea of nolo contendere he shall be admonished by the court of the consequences; and neither of such pleas shall be received unless it plainly appears that he is sane, and is uninfluenced by any consideration of fear, or by any persuasion, or delusive hope of pardon, prompting him to confess his guilt."”

   4 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Jorden v. State · Rogers v. State

3. ““(a) Prior to accepting a plea of guilty or a plea of nolo contendere, the court shall admonish the defendant of: “(1) the range of the punishment attached to the offense; “(2) the fact that the recommendation of the prosecuting attorney as to punishment is not binding on the court. Provided that the court shall inquire as to the existence of any plea bargaining agreements between the state and the defendant and, in the event that such an agreement exists, the court shall inform the defendant whether it will follow or reject such agreement in open court and before any finding on the plea. Should the court reject any such agreement, the defendant shall be permitted to withdraw his plea of guilty or nolo contendere, and neither the fact that the defendant had entered a plea of guilty or nolo conten- dere nor any statements made by him at the hearing on the plea of guilty or nolo contendere may be used against the defendant on the issue of guilt or punishment in any subsequent criminal proceeding; and “(3) the fact that if the punishment assessed does not exceed the punishment recommended by the prosecutor and agreed to by the defendant and his attorney, the trial court must give its permission to the defendant before he may prosecute an appeal on any matter in the case except for those matters raised by written motions filed prior to trial. “(b) No plea of guilty or plea of nolo contendere shall be accepted by the court unless it appears that the defendant is mentally competent”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. DeVary v. State