Wright v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

2 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 2 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “"In the usual case in which restitution is imposed by the court, a factual determination of indigence is appropriate before a defendant is incarcerated for nonpayment. In the present case, however, such a determination would be irrelevant. Here, the appellant helped to formulate the conditions of a plea agreement that included the specific consequence of revocation of probation for failure to pay restitution. He specifically waived the right to plead poverty in the event of such nonpayment. "This Court finds the reasoning in Brushingham v. State , 460 So.2d 523 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1984), in a factually similar situation to be persuasive. In that case, the appellant agreed to pay restitution as a condition of probation, waiving a plea of poverty. The court found that the appellant could not legally complain of the consequences of his failure to uphold his end of the bargain. Further, such an agreement was not void as against public policy. Id , citing Doherty v. State , 448 So.2d 624 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App. 1984). "The appellant in the present case voluntarily agreed to the consequences of his failure to pay restitution. The trial court did not then err in imposing them."”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 708 So. 2d 214 - Bones v. State