5 Md. App. 484 - Duvall v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

29 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 29 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““* * * the record before us does not show that any inquiry was made, either by the court or by defense counsel, as to whether appellant understood the nature of the charge and the possible consequences of a plea of guilty, particularly as to the length of the sentence that could be imposed upon him by the court. We recognize, of course, that defense counsel ordinarily advises an accused in detail concerning the nature of the crime charged, as well as the consequences of a guilty plea. We are unwilling, however, to conclude on a silent record that defense counsel did in fact so advise the accused, and we hold that appellant’s guilty plea was not satis factorily shown to be freely and intelligently entered.” 2 (Emphasis supplied).”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 15 Md. App. 686 - Mathews v. State

2. ““More specifically there is authority holding that Section 11 of Article 57 which limits prosecutions for misdemeanors ‘except those punished by confinement in the penitentiary’ to one year is properly interpreted by viewing the word ‘punished’ to mean ‘punishable’ by confinement in the penitentiary. See Schaumloeffel v. State, 102 Md. 470 . Accordingly, while the crime of escape need not be punished by confinement in the penitentiary (incarceration in jail or the House of Correction also being authorized), it is in any event punishable by confinement in the penitentiary, and therefore not barred from prosecution after one year under the statute.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 27 Md. App. 404 - Murray v. State

3. ““A plea of guilty can be effectively accepted by a court only under the standard applicable to waiver of constitutional rights. To satisfy this standard the record must affirmatively show that the plea of guilty was entered by an accused : (1) voluntarily, that is not through coercion, terror, inducements, or subtle or blatant threats; and (2) with an intelligent understanding, that is not through ignorance or incomprehension : (a) of the nature of the offense to which he is pleading guilty; and (b) of the possible consequences of such a plea; and (3) unconditionally, that is without any condition or qualification.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 15 Md. App. 686 - Mathews v. State