Howington v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

1 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 1 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “"Although the appellant cites Ex parte Williams , 510 So.2d 135 (Ala. 1987), Ex parte Glover , 508 So.2d 218 (Ala. 1987), and Pardue v. State , 571 So.2d 320 (Ala.Cr.App. 1989), reversed on other grounds, 571 So.2d 333 (Ala. 1990), this case is factually distinguishable. In the present case, the resentencing hearing was held pursuant to the State's motion one day following the original sentencing hearing. *Page 898 The trial court ruled the original sentencing hearing to be void, and the appellant received seven days of proper notice prior to the resentencing. Such notice was sufficient. Hinton v. State , 473 So.2d 1125 (Ala. 1985). Thus, any error was corrected at the trial level, prior to the filing of the notice of appeal. Because the first sentencing hearing was held to be void and the proper procedures for sentencing were thereafter fulfilled while the trial court still retained jurisdiction, the original sentencing hearing was moot and a nullity for purposes of appeal. See Ray v. State , 484 So.2d 524 , 528 (Ala.Cr.App. 1985). See also Rule 60(b), Alabama Rules of Civil Procedure. Thus, we find no error in the appellant's sentencing."”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 622 So. 2d 896 - Ex Parte Howington