Whitten v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1979
Citation profile
79 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 79 later decisions — most recently July 2012 · most notably Cain v. State (1997), Matchett v. State (1996)
79 state decisions
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
Relationships
Relies on Boykin v. Alabama · Northeast Texas Motor Lines, Inc. v. Hodges · Williams v. State · Ex Parte Taylor · Guster 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 79 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“In admonishing the defendant as herein provided, substantial compliance by the court is sufficient, unless the defendant affirmatively shows that he was not aware of the consequences of his plea and that he was misled or harmed by the admonishment of the court.”
9 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Nycum v. State · Ex Parte Gibauitch“"Substantial compliance will also be found where a required admonishment is given, but is given in a different form than that prescribed by the statute yet which effectively satisfied the statutory requirements. [citations omitted.] .. [T]here are two essential elements in these tolerated admonishments that are present in every case. First, the trial court gives the admonishment and, second, it is given directly to the defendant. "In Art. 26.13, the legislature mandated that the trial court be responsible for giving the admonishment ... The trial court, not the prosecutor, must satisfy itself as to the propriety of guilty pleas and defendants should properly look to the trial court, not the prosecutor, for admonishments on the law. ... The necessary participation of the trial court is a consistent requirement. "The defendant must also be the object of the admonishment. To comply with both Texas law and federal due process, the defendant must hear and understand the admonishments."”
5 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Goodie v. State · Taylor v. State“(1) the range of punishment attached to the offense;”
5 later decisions 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.