Basham v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1980
Citation profile
41 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 41 later decisions — most recently November 2017 · most notably McDuff v. State (1997), Fuller v. State (1992)
41 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 Sieling v. Eyman · Vasquez v. State · Harrington v. State · Brazzell v. State · Ex Parte Hagans
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 41 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(a)Prior to accepting a plea of guilty or a plea of nolo contendere, the court shall admonish the defendant of: (1) the range of the punishment attached to the offense; (2) the fact that the recommendation of the prosecuting attorney as to punishment is not binding on the court.... [[Image here]] (4) the fact that if the defendant is not a citizen of the United States of America, a plea of guilty or nolo contendere for the offense charged may result in deportation, the exclusion from admission to this country, or the denial of naturalization under federal law. (b) No plea of guilty or plea of nolo contendere shall be accepted by the court unless it appears that the defendant is mentally competent and the plea is free and voluntary. (c) 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.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Singleton v. State · Adams v. State““To preserve error for review by this Court, the denial of a motion in limine is simply not sufficient. There must be a proper objection to the proffered evidence.””
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Houston v. State
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.