Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 602 SO2D 452 - Ex Parte State

Ex Parte State’s Empirical Analysis

1992

Citation profile

36
cited by 36 later decisions
1
states following
August 2012
most recently cited

35 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 36 later decisions — most recently August 2012 · most notably 846 So. 2d 370 - Poole v. State (2002), 607 So. 2d 383 - Tatum v. State (1992)

35 state decisions

240199220002010decided

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 North Carolina v. Pearce · Alabama v. Smith · Texas v. McCullough · 500 So. 2d 57 - Ex Parte Jesse Lee Morrison · 500 So. 2d 68 - Ex Parte State of Alabama

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

  1. “`[T]he State's failure to offer certain felonies as the basis for HFOA sentence enhancement does not prevent the State's offer of those felonies at any subsequent sentencing hearing. Where the State, between sentencing hearings, learns of previous felony convictions, it is under a duty to attempt to prove them at the subsequent sentencing hearing. '”
    11 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “"For the HFOA to apply to a particular sentencing, the State must give reasonable notice, prior to the sentencing hearing, of the State's intention to proceed under the HFOA. Rule 26.6(b)(3), Ala.R.Crim.P. (Formerly Temp. Rule 6(b)(3)(ii), Ala.R.Crim.P.). Written notice is not required; oral notice will suffice. Garrett v. State, 480 So.2d 58 (Ala. Crim.App.1985). Determination of the `reasonableness' of the notice period is left to the trial judge's discretion, because the trial judge is present and is familiar with the circumstances of the case. Humber v. State, 481 So.2d 452 (Ala.Crim.App.1985). The notice requirement is eliminated when during the trial the defendant admits the previous felony conviction. Petite v. State, 520 So.2d 207 (Ala.Crim.App.1987)."”
    6 later decisions quote this exact passage
  3. “This requires only that the defendant be notified before each sentencing hearing that the HFOA [Habitual Felony Offender Act] will be applied and what convictions the State will attempt to prove .”
    2 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.