Gordon v. Nagle’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

32 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 33 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “'The Youthful Offender Act is intended to extricate persons below twenty-one years of age from the harshness of criminal prosecution and conviction.'”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. STE v. State · A.Z. v. State

2. “"The procedural requirements of Boykin have been incorporated into the Alabama Rules of Criminal Procedure at Rule 14.4. "Subsequent to Boykin , the Alabama appellate courts held that in order to enter a knowing and valid guilty plea, the defendant must be informed on the record of the maximum and minimum possible sentences. In Jones v. State , 48 Ala. App. 32 , 261 So.2d 451 (1972), the Court of Criminal Appeals cited Boykin v. Alabama as authority to remand the case to the trial court for a further hearing 'as to whether or not the appellant, before pleading guilty, had been informed as to the minimum and maximum punishment for grand larceny.' In 1973, this Court followed Jones v. State: " 'The "utmost solicitude" required by Boykin , supra, requires a showing not only that the defendant believed he knew the range of punishment, but that his belief was accurate. The better practice is to elicit the maximum and minimum sentences from the defendant himself, so that the knowledge thereof appears on the face of the record. See Jones v. State , [ 48 Ala. App. 32 , 261 So.2d 451 (1972)].' " Carter v. State , 291 Ala. 83 , at 85, 277 So.2d 896 , at 897-98 (1973). It is this holding upon which Ex parte Rivers was based.”

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

3. ““The confusion in Alabama law is the result of contradictory holdings by the Court of Criminal Appeals in Sampson [v. State, 605 So.2d 846 (Ala.Crim.App.1992) ], and Mosley [v. State, 616 So.2d 362 (Ala.Crim.App.1993)], and that court’s interpretation of our decision in Ex parte Rivers [ 597 So.2d 1308 (Ala.1991) ]. The Court of Criminal Appeals has read Ex parte Rivers as holding that any defect in the entry of a plea of guilty is always a matter of jurisdiction. Ex parte Rivers held that the failure to inform a defendant of the minimum and maximum sentences constituted a defect in an entry of a plea of guilty that went to the voluntariness of that plea and, therefore, was subject to collateral challenge under Boykin v. Alabama, [ 395 U.S. 238 , 89 S.Ct. 1709 , 23 L.Ed.2d 274 (1969) ]. The collateral challenge in Ex parte Rivers to the plea of guilty was made within the two-year period of limitations.””

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