Ex Parte Williams’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

42 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 42 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “Essentially, plea bargaining consists of the prosecutor making concessions regarding specific punishment, lesser charges, or the reduction of counts which comprise the charging instrument in exchange for the defendant’s concession as to his plea of guilty or plea of nolo con-tendere. The United States Supreme Court in Bordenkircher v. Hayes, 434 U.S. 357 , 98 S.Ct. 663 , 54 L.Ed.2d 604 (1978), has ratified the use of plea bargaining: “Plea bargaining flows from the ‘mutuality of advantage’ to defendants and prosecutors, each with his own reasons for wanting to avoid trial.” 434 U.S. at 363 , 98 S.Ct. at 668 . When a defendant agrees to the terms of a plea bargain agreement he is deemed to have entered into the agreement knowingly and voluntarily unless he shows otherwise. In effect, he becomes a party to a “contract”. Jones v. Estelle, 584 F.2d 687 (5th Cir.1978). The “con tract” does not become operative until the court announces it will be bound by the plea bargain agreement. Once the court makes such an announcement, the State is bound to carry out its side of the bargain. Compare, Santobello v. New York, 404 U.S. 257 , 92 S.Ct. 495 , 30 L.Ed.2d 427 (1971); De Russe v. State, 579 S.W.2d 224 (Tex. Cr.App.1979). Likewise, the defendant is bound to carry out his side of the bargain. This Court in Joiner v. State, 578 S.W.2d 739 (Tex.Cr. App.1979), speaking in contractual terms, said that when a plea bargain is not kept, the proper relief is either specific enforcement of the ”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Thi Van Le v. Perkins · In Re DRR

2. ““Essentially, plea bargaining consists of the prosecutor making concessions regarding specific punishment, lesser charges, or the reduction of counts which comprise the charging instrument in exchange for the defendant’s concession as to his plea of guilty or nolo contendere.””

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Howard v. State · Scott v. State

3. “[at the August 19, 1982 hearing] THE COURT: Do you wish to plead guilty to the offense of robbery, sir? THE DEFENDANT: Yes, sir. THE COURT: Now robbery is a second degree felony in this state and, if found guilty of the robbery, your punishment would be assessed at not less than two nor more than twenty years confinement in the Texas Department of Corrections and you could be assessed a fine not to exceed ten thousand dollars. Do you understand sir? Do you wish to plead guilty to robbery? THE DEFENDANT: Yes, sir. THE COURT: And what is the District Attorney’s recommendation? MR. GRAZIER: Your Honor, we would merely recommend probation for the defendant, leaving all other terms and conditions up to the Court. ‡ ⅜ ⅜ ‡ ⅜ # THE COURT: Other than the District Attorney’s recommendation has anyone by persuasion caused you to enter this plea? THE DEFENDANT: No. * ⅜ ⅜ ‡ ⅜ * THE COURT: Has anyone promised you anything to plead guilty, other than the State’s recommendation of probation? THE DEFENDANT: No, sir. * * * * * * THE COURT: Now the District Attorney in this case is recommending pro bation. That is his only recommendation. That means that I could place you on probation for two years up to ten years. Do you understand that? THE DEFENDANT: Yes, sir. THE COURT: I can assess a fine in this case of up to ten thousand dollars. Do you understand that, sir? THE DEFENDANT: Yes, sir. THE COURT: I could send you to the Texas Department of Corrections for a period of a hundred and eighty da”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Contreras v. State