Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 58 So. 3d 59 - Mitchell v. State

58 So. 3d 59 - Mitchell v. State’s Empirical Analysis

2011

Citation profile

18
cited by 18 later decisions
2
states following
November 2016
most recently cited

18 state decisions

Relationships

Relies on Strickland v. Washington · 551 So. 2d 188 - Benson v. State · 943 So. 2d 20 - Hannah v. State · Flowers v. State · 960 So. 2d 563 - Staggs v. State

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

  1. “In order to demonstrate ineffective assistance of counsel, a petitioner must satisfy the familiar two-prong test established in Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687 , 104 S.Ct. 2052 , 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984). “First, the convicted defendant must show that counsel’s representation fell below an objective standard of reasonableness. Second, the defendant must show there is reasonable probability that, but for counsel’s unprofessional errors, the result of the proceeding would have been different.” Hannah v. State, 943 So.2d 20, 24 (¶ 6) (Miss.2006) (internal citations omitted).”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. “While it is correct that the date of the judgment is not specifically stated in the indictment, all of the information that is contained [in the indictment], and specifically the cause number, afforded the defendant access to the date of the judgment. This Court holds that information pertaining to the date of the judgment was substantially set forth in the indictment and that sufficient information was afforded the defendant to inform him of the specific prior convictions upon which the State relied for enhanced punishment to comply with due process.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. “[E]ven though the date of judgment for each prior conviction was not provided in the amendment to [Derrick] Mitchell’s indictment, all the information contained therein afforded Mitchell access to the date of judgment. The amendment provides the nature and description of each prior felony conviction; it indicates the court in which each conviction was adjudicated; it states the sentence given by the court for each conviction and that Mitchell served one year or more for each sentence; and it provides the cause number for each case.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage

How this case has been treated — in progress

Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.