Cantu v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1994
Citation profile
69 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 71 later decisions — most recently June 2018 · most notably 884 So. 2d 801 - Mobile Infirmary Medical Center v. Hodgen (2003), Ex Parte Morrow (2004)
69 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 Boykin v. Alabama · Halliday v. United States · Bartone v. United States · Carter v. State · 547 So. 2d 68 - Ex Parte Brannon
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 71 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“" State v. Applegate, 39 Or.App. 17, 21 , 591 P.2d 371, 373 (1979)."”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““Under either option [filing a motion to withdraw the guilty plea or filing a Rule 32, AIa.R.Crim.P., petition], the trial court is given the first opportunity to review the issue of voluntariness of the guilty plea. This procedure enables the trial judge to pass on any points raised and also establishes a record on which an appellate court may base an informed and reasoned disposition of the appeal. The question of voluntariness will first be put to the trial court, which can conduct an evidentiary hearing, and, if necessary, entertain collateral evidence in support of the defendant’s position. If a trial court rules against the defendant either on the motion to withdraw the guilty plea or on the Rule 32 petition, that ruling may be challenged upon appeal.””
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Little v. State · Handley v. State““[Tjhis Court and the Court of Criminal Appeals have consistently held that a defendant must be informed of the maximum and minimum possible sentences as an absolute constitutional prerequisite to the acceptance of a guilty plea.... [[Image here]] “ ‘[W]hen a sentence is clearly illegal or not authorized by statute, the defendant does not need to object at the trial level in order to preserve that issue for appellate review.’ ””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
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.