508 So. 2d 218 - Ex Parte Glover’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

24 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 24 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “"While, as we have stated, the denial of a pre-sentence report, under these circumstances, is not reversible error . . ., the absence of such a report is a contributing factor in our holding of reversible error in the trial court's application of the Habitual Felony Offender Act. Indeed, although it is not a direct basis for reversal, the error in failing to give the defendant reasonable notice of the application of the Habitual Felony Offender Act, or to continue the sentencing, is further compounded by the trial court's granting of the State's request for a recess, during the trial, to obtain material with which to impeach the defendant. "Because the trial court sentenced the defendant pursuant to the Habitual Felony Offender Act to 20 years' imprisonment (the maximum allowable for a Class B offense), without complying with the notice requirements, the judgment of sentence is reversed and the cause is remanded to the Court of Criminal Appeals for its remand to the circuit court for resentencing pursuant to § 13A-7-7 (b), § 13A-5-6 (a)(3), and Rule 6(a), (b)(1), (2), and (c), Temp.Ala.R. Crim.P. See Ex parte Williams , 510 So.2d 135 (Ala. 1987). Stated otherwise, under these circumstances, the Habitual Felony Offender Act cannot be applied."”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 588 So. 2d 502 - Hayes v. State · 581 So. 2d 11 - Hugley v. State

2. “"At a reasonable time prior to the [sentencing] hearing, the defendant shall be given notice of the prior conviction or convictions upon which the state intends to proceed."”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Crews v. State · Webb v. State

3. “"The purpose of the Rule's notice and hearing requirements, where, as here, the defendant does not admit the alleged prior convictions, is to test the propriety of the enhancement of the sentence pursuant to the Act. Questions of authenticity of the record of conviction; identity of the accused; and whether the accused was represented by counsel upon his prior felony convictions, are all proper inquiries leading to the appropriate application of the Act."”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Crews v. State · 622 So. 2d 896 - Ex Parte Howington