Williams v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

15 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 17 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “Deportation may be a penalty more severe than a prison sentence. Deportation may result in families being divided or in “loss of property or life; or of all that makes life worthwhile.” Ng Fung Ho v. White, 259 U.S. 276, 284 , 42 S.Ct. 492, 495 , 66 L.Ed. 938 (1922). It has been called “a savage penalty,” “a life sentence of exile.” Jordan v. De George, 341 U.S. 223, 243 , 71 S.Ct. 703, 714 , 95 L.Ed. 886 (1951) (Jackson, J., dissenting).”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Ramirez · 810 So. 2d 1106 - State v. Montalban

2. “it constitutes ineffective assistance for an attorney to fail to advise a non-citizen defendant of the deportation consequences of a guilty plea”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent
   e.g. State v. Bonilla · Vasquez v. State

3. “The petitioners concede that the court advised them of the rights enumerated in this statute, but argue that due process requires the court to inform nonciti-zens of the deportation consequences of a guilty plea. We disagree. Our federal courts have largely considered deportation to be a “collateral” consequence of a guilty plea. Collateral consequences attending a guilty plea in some circumstances may be far less onerous than deportation.... In Indiana, however, the term “collateral consequences” has been applied in the guilty plea context to certain “subsequent negative consequences of an earlier conviction,” Pike v. State (1990), Ind.App., 557 N.E.2d 1, 3 , vacated on other grounds, 569 N.E.2d 650 . “[W]e have often held that one who pleads guilty need not be advised [by the court] that the conviction might have adverse but future collateral consequences. Such holdings are unquestionably premised upon the rationale that the immediate conviction is the lone concern and future or contemplated but uncertain consequences need not be considered or made subject of discussion or advisement. Such considerations are irrelevant to the validity, vel non of the particular conviction in dispute.” Id., 557 N.E.2d at 3 . ... The responsibilities of a trial court in accepting a guilty plea are set forth with great specificity in our statutes and case law. We may not impose upon the courts the additional duty of inquiring into the citizenship and immigration status of criminal defendants.”

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