488 So. 2d 41 - Alexander v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

8 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 8 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “"In a plea of guilty proceedings the judge should undertake a factual inquiry to determine if the plea is voluntarily made with an understanding of the nature of the charge and the consequences of the plea. Further, the judge should be satisfied that there is a factual basis for the plea. "”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 647 So. 2d 87 - Tillery v. State · 570 So. 2d 844 - Bowens v. State

2. ““When a defendant waives the reading of an indictment at his arraignment, he is nonetheless charged with knowledge of its contents. Russell v. State, [ 428 So.2d 131 (Ala.1982) ]; Atteberry v. State, [ 448 So.2d 425 (Ala.Cr.App.1983), cert. denied, 448 So.2d 425 (Ala.1984) ]; 22 C.J.S. Criminal Law § 411(5) (1961). We believe that when appellant, while Represented by counsel, who was present, waived the reading of the indictment and entered a plea of not guilty at his arraignment, he was chargeable with knowledge of the contents of the indictment, which would fully inform him of the elements contained in the charges and of the factual basis for them. The waiver of the reading of the indictment by appellant with representation of counsel was tantamount to the indictment having been read at arraignment in open court. “We note that Atteberry, 448 So.2d at 427 , states that ‘it is the better practice that, even when a mere reading of the indictment is sufficient, the reading should occur at the time of the guilty plea proceeding.’ (Emphasis added [in Alexander ].) Although this may be the better practice, we do not believe that it is absolutely required. If appellant can be charged with knowledge of the contents of the indictment at one phase of the proceedings, it is logical that he should retain his knowledge in subsequent phases of the proceedings.””

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

3. “"Comes the defendant in the above-styled cause and states to the court that he has read, or has had read to him, the matters and things hereinabove set forth; that his attorney has thoroughly gone over said matters and things with him and that he, the defendant, thoroughly understands them; that he is not under the influence of any drugs, medicines or alcoholic beverages and has not been threaten or abused or offered any inducement or reward to get him to plea guilty. Defendant further states to the court that he is guilty as charged, in this case, and desires to plead guilty."”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 570 So. 2d 844 - Bowens v. State