Gordon v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

9 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 9 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““(d) Plea Withdrawal. (1)The court shall allow the defendant to withdraw his plea of guilty or nolo conten-dere whenever the defendant, upon a timely motion for withdrawal, proves that withdrawal is necessary to correct manifest injustice. (i) A motion for withdrawal is timely and is not barred because made subsequent to judgment or sentence if it is made with due diligence. (ii) Withdrawal is necessary to correct a manifest injustice whenever the defendant demonstrates that: (aa) He was denied the effective assistance of counsel guaranteed to him by constitution, statute or rule, or (bb) The plea was not entered or ratified by the defendant or a person authorized to so act in his behalf, or (cc) The plea was involuntary, or was entered without knowledge of the charge or that the sentence actually imposed could be imposed, or (dd) He did not receive the charge or sentence concessions contemplated by the plea agreement, and (A) the prosecuting attorney failed to seek or opposed the concessions promised in the plea agreement or (B) after being advised that the court no longer concurred and after being called upon to affirm or withdraw his plea, he did not affirm his plea. (iii)The defendant may move for withdrawal of his plea without alleging he is innocent of the charge to which the plea has been entered. (2) Once the plea has been accepted by the court and absent a showing that withdrawal is necessary to correct a manifest injustice, a defendant may not withdraw his plea of g”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Winkler v. State · Osborne v. State

2. “Although we specifically reserve the question of whether Buckalew will require in the future an involuntary per se rule, we hold that the Buckalew prohibition on judicial involvement in plea negotiations does not apply retroactively to pleas taken prior to March 14, 1977. Any defendant who believes he was induced to enter a plea against his will because the trial judge participated in plea negotiations, must resort to the procedure and standards of proof for the withdrawal of a plea of guilty or nolo contendere as set forth in Criminal Rule 32(d).”

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

3. ““[W]e hold that a defendant cannot challenge the voluntariness of his plea on direct appeal from the judgment entered upon his plea. A motion to withdraw the plea must first be made in the superior court pursuant to the requirements of Rule 32(d). Since appellant has failed to make such a motion, his convictions must be affirmed.” (footnote omitted).”

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