Ayala v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

2 federal appellate · 19 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 24 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “... the State of Texas, through its Legislature, has indicated a State policy to provide legal assistance throughout the course of a criminal “appeal," which I believe includes the filing of a petition for discretionary review. In White v. State, 543 S.W.2d 366, 368 (Tex.Cr.App.1976), Roberts, J., who wrote the plurality opinion for the Court, stated in part: Our research reveals that the word “appeal” has not been construed in Texas by an appellate court having criminal jurisdiction since 1840. In that year, in Republic v. Smith, Dallam 407 , the Supreme Court of the Republic of Texas defined an appeal (quoting Blackstone) as "a complaint to a superior court of injustice done by an inferior one.” Mr. Black gives a similar definition. Black's Law Dictionary, supra, at 124 (citations and footnote omitted). Following these definitional guidelines, it seems clear that a petition for certiorari, like a writ of error in Texas practice, is an “appeal,” albeit a discretionary one (citations omitted). To say that review by certiorari does not constitute an appeal is to make a distinction without substance, since such a review necessarily involves an attempt to persuade a superior court to correct the error of a lower court. Likewise, to hold discretionary review by this Court does not constitute an "appeal,” is to make a distinction without substance. Although this Court held in Ayala, 633 S.W.2d at 527 , "... the Fourteenth Amendment does not require a state to provide indigents wit”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
   e.g. Ex Parte Wilson

2. “preparation of an appellate brief to a court of appeals or the Court of Criminal Appeals. " (Emphasis Supplied). And, Article 1.051(d)(2), in relevant part, requires a trial court to appoint counsel to represent an indigent defendant in: " an appeal to the Court of Criminal Appeals if the appeal is made directly from the trial court or if a petition for discretionary review has been granted. " (Emphasis Supplied). Relator claims that because of his appointment under Article 26.04(a) until all appeals were exhausted, Respondent has a ministerial duty under Article 26.05(a)(3) to compensate Relator for filing the petitions for discretionary review. We disagree because the 1987 amendments to Articles 26.04 and 26.05 and the addition of Article 1.051(d) retain the holdings of Ayala and Polk subject to the exceptions set out in Article 1.051(d)(3) and (4), V.A.C.C.P., which are not applicable here. Consistent with Polk , Article 1.051(d)(2) provides for the appointment of counsel in an "appeal”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent
   e.g. Peterson v. Jones

3. “"Sec. 2. The Court of Criminal Appeals shall have, and is hereby given, final appellate and review jurisdiction in criminal cases coextensive with the limits of the state, and its determinations shall be final. The appeal of all cases in which the death penalty has been assessed shall be to the Court of Criminal Appeals. In addition, the Court of Criminal Appeals may, on its own motion, with or without a petition for such discretionary review being filed by one of the parties, review any decision of a Court of Appeals in a criminal case. Discretionary review by the Court of Criminal Appeals is not a matter of right, but of sound judicial discretion. (Emphasis supplied.) (Acts 1981, 67th Leg., p. 802, ch. 291, § 103, eff. Sept. 1, 1981.)”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Todd v. State