565 So. 2d 294 - Lochli v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

2 federal appellate · 14 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 16 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “"[W]here the defendant is given sentencing misinformation, the mere fact that he was given such misinformation " ' "does not end the matter. 'The standard was and remains whether the plea represents a voluntary and intelligent choice among the alternative courses of action open to the defendant.' North Carolina v. Alford , 400 U.S. 25 , 31 , 91 S.Ct. 160 , 164 , 27 L.Ed.2d 162 , 168 (1970). The dispositive issue . . . is whether [the defendant] would have or would not have pleaded guilty had he been given the correct [information]. See Pitts v. United States , 763 F.2d 197 , 201 (6th Cir. 1985); Williams v. Smith , 591 F.2d 169 ([2nd Cir.] 1979)." ' "Jackson v. State , 565 So.2d 669 , 671 (Ala.Cr.App. 1990) (quoting Holman v. Jones , No. CV-87-A-2163-S (N.D.Ala. Nov. 16, 1988)) (emphasis added)."”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Gordon v. Nagle · 660 So. 2d 227 - Parish v. State

2. “"We hold, then, that while a trial court should inform a youthful defendant of the provisions of the Youthful Offender Act prior to the plea state, its failure to do so will not constitute reversible error if the court gives adequate notice prior to conviction , unless, of course, the defendant entered a plea of 'guilty' to the charges against him, without notice of the Act, or he can otherwise show that he has been prejudiced by the court's delay."”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Baker v. State · Gordon v. Nagle

3. “"Under Coleman v. Alabama , 827 F.2d 1469 (11th Cir. 1987), the right to apply for youthful offender treatment is the equivalent of a sentencing option and an age-eligible defendant must be apprised of this right prior to the acceptance of his guilty plea. However, the failure of a trial court to advise a defendant of his right to apply for youthful offender treatment prior to the acceptance of the guilty plea does not automatically require that the plea be set aside. See Pardue v. State , 566 So.2d 502 , 504 (Ala.Cr.App. 1990). As in any situation *Page 96 where the defendant is given sentencing misinformation, the mere fact that he was given such misinformation " ' "does not end the matter. 'The standard was and remains whether the plea represents a voluntary and intelligent choice among the alternative courses of action open to the defendant.' North Carolina v. Alford , 400 U.S. 25 , 31 , 91 S.Ct. 160 , 164 , 27 L.Ed.2d 162 , 168 (1970). . . ." ' "”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Gordon v. Nagle