659 So. 2d 1324 - State v. Fox’s Empirical Analysis
1995
Citation profile
39 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 39 later decisions — most recently June 2016 · most notably 756 So. 2d 42 - Peart v. State (2000), Major v. State (2002)
39 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
Applies 18 U.S.C. § 922 (Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act)
Relies on Rosenberg v. Comerica Bank · Austin Products Co. v. Workers' Compensation Insurers Rating Association of Minnesota · 316 So. 2d 267 - Williams v. State · 486 So. 2d 592 - Funchess v. Wainwright · United States v. Jordan
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 39 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The distinction between `direct' and `collateral' consequences of a plea, while sometimes shaded in the relevant decisions, turns on whether the result represents a definite, immediate and largely automatic effect on the range of the defendant's punishment.”
8 later decisions quote this exact passage“[A] judge is required to inform a defendant only of the direct consequences of his plea and is under no duty to apprise him of any collateral consequences. A direct consequence is one that has a "`definite, immediate, and largely automatic effect on the range of the defendant's punishment.'" "`[A] plea's possible enhancing effect on a subsequent sentence is merely a collateral consequence of the conviction; it is not the type of consequence about which a defendant must be advised before the defendant enters the plea.'" The sentencing court is not required "to anticipate a defendant's recidivism." Therefore, the fact that the felony adjudication might be used against the defendant in a subsequent federal prosecution was a collateral consequence of the plea and was not an issue the trial judge was required to cover in the plea colloquy.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“`[A] plea's possible enhancing effect on a subsequent sentence is merely a collateral consequence of the conviction; it is not the type of consequence about which a defendant must be advised before the defendant enters the plea.'”
2 later decisions 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.