64 Cal. 2d 297 - People v. Ebner’s Empirical Analysis
1966
Citation profile
72 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 75 later decisions — most recently September 2012 · most notably 49 Cal. 3d 131 - In Re Harris (1989), 165 Cal. App. 3d 167 - People v. Arwood (1985)
72 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 Gideon v. Wainwright · Escobedo v. Illinois · 46 Cal. 2d 818 - People v. Watson · Fahy v. Connecticut · 62 Cal. 2d 338 - People v. Dorado
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 75 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“We have held that a prior felony conviction cannot support an adjudication of habitual criminality under Penal Code section 644 unless at the prior proceeding the defendant was represented by counsel or intelligently and understandingly waived that right. (In re Tucker (1966) ante, p. 15 [ 48 Cal.Rptr. 697 , 409 P.2d 921 ]; In re Luce (1966) ante, p. 11 [ 48 Cal.Rptr. 694 , 409 P.2d 918 ]; In re Woods (1966) ante, p. 3 [ 48 Cal.Rptr. 689 , 409 P.2d 913 ].) We cannot determine on the basis of the record before us whether defendant's Arizona conviction of burglary can support an adjudication of habitual criminality. Following the procedure outlined in Tucker, Luce, and Woods, we must return this cause to the trial court for hearing and findings on the factual issue whether defendant suffered a deprivation of his constitutional right to counsel in the Arizona proceedings.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“Defendant's admission of the prior convictions is not limited in scope to the fact of the convictions but extends to all allegations concerning the felonies contained in the information. ( People v. Jackson (1950) 36 Cal.2d 281 , 287 ...; People v. Greenwell (1962) 203 Cal. App.2d 1, 3-4 ....) In effect defendant admitted to two felony convictions at different times and in different states; the trial court therefore correctly concluded that defendant had twice been convicted `upon charges separately brought and tried.'”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“the prior allegation as it pertains to Count 1 and also as further alleged in Count 1. " (Italics added.) We assume this admission was made to prevent the charge of the prior conviction from being read to the jury as allowed by section 1025, subdivision (c). "Defendant's admission of the prior convictions is not limited in scope to the fact of the convictions but extends to all allegations concerning the felonies contained in the information.”
1 later decision 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.