Taylor v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

12 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 12 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “The fact that the words actually stating the possible automatic life punishment were not spoken by the trial judge does not preclude a finding that the trial court was responsible for giving the admonishment. The facts here strike us as analogous to the use of a translator by the court to admonish a defendant who cannot understand English. The fact that in such a situation the actual communication to the accused is not spoken by the trial judge would not preclude a finding of compliance with Art. 26.13, supra. The words spoken by the translator would no doubt be found to be adopted by the court as its own. Similarly, the prosecutor’s words in this case appear to have been adopted by the trial court as its own. While the style used is no model form to be condoned or copied, we nevertheless find the trial court was being responsible for giving the admonishment and was satisfying itself as to the propriety of appellant’s plea. We also conclude that the response made by appellant demonstrates his participation as the object and recipient of the admonishment. The two essentials of substantial compliance explained in Whitten on rehearing were present.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent
   e.g. Goodie v. State · Khan Phi Nguyen v. State

2. “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.... In this case, the trial court did not participate in the admonishment and the admonishment was not directed to the defendant. There was consequently no substantial compliance with the provisions of Art. 26.13.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent
   e.g. Goodie v. State · Khan Phi Nguyen v. State

3. “"Even prior to 1975 when Article 26.13, supra, was amended to explicitedly provide that a defendant must be admonished as to the range of punishment attached to the offense, this court held that a trial court must admonish a defendant in a felony case of the consequences of his plea, including the punishment provided by law for the offense and the punishment which could be inflicted under his plea.” See also Eubanks v. State, 599 S.W.2d 815 (Tex.Cr.App.1980).”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Ex Parte Williams