60 Wis. 2d 373 - Smith v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

23 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 23 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “[I]f a motion to withdraw a guilty plea after judgment and sentence alleges facts which, if true, would entitle the defendant to relief, the trial court must hold an evidentiary hearing. However, if the defendant fails to allege sufficient facts in his motion to raise a question of fact, or presents only conclusory allegations, or if the record conclusively demonstrates that the defendant is not entitled to relief, the trial court may in the exercise of its legal discretion deny the motion without a hearing.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 69 Wis. 2d 355 - Zuehl v. State · 201 Wis. 2d 303 - State v. Bentley

2. “... [W]here several grounds for relief are separately set forth in a motion for postconviction relief, we hold that the trial court is to deal with each in finding an evidentiary hearing not required, not only to facilitate review by this court on appeal but also to conform to the Peterson Case [Peterson v. State (1972), 54 Wis. 2d 370 , 195 N. W. 2d 837 ] reference to `sufficient particularity.' At the least, a reference or referral for the purpose of making such particularized conclusions will be made in future cases where a variety of grounds for relief are commingled in a single holding that dismissal of a motion for postconviction is warranted without a hearing... We hope, however, that we have made clear that, where multiple grounds for relief are claimed or set forth, particularized rulings as to each are to be made in a denial of the motion for postconviction relief without an evidentiary hearing. Denial of such motion without hearing is to be made by a written opinion as Nelson requires and with the `sufficient particularity' that Peterson is held to require.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 72 Wis. 2d 740 - Bergenthal v. State

3. “is no more than a 'conclusory allegation' and, under Nelson , not sufficient to require the trial court to direct that an evidentiary hearing be conducted.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 201 Wis. 2d 303 - State v. Bentley