709 So. 2d 1321 - Clements v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1997
Citation profile
4 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 4 later decisions — most recently February 2011
4 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 Ex Parte State · 566 So. 2d 758 - Ex Parte State · 629 So. 2d 51 - Nichols v. State · Cooper v. State · 632 So. 2d 1344 - Cooper v. State
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 4 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“"In Nichols v. State , 629 So.2d 51 (Ala.Cr.App. 1993), this court stated that if resentencing was required, the defendant was entitled to be renotified of the State's intent to proceed under the HFOA and renotified of the convictions it intends to prove. "`"To enhance a defendant's sentence under the HFOA, the State must give proper notice of its intent to do so. The State must also give the defendant proper notice of the alleged previous felony convictions that it will attempt to prove at that sentencing hearing. If, for whatever reason, another sentencing hearing is required and the State had notified the defendant of its intent to proceed under the HFOA at the previous sentencing hearing, then the State can re-notify the defendant of its intent to proceed under the HFOA and can notify the defendant that it will attempt to prove all previous felony convictions that the State is aware of, regardless of whether the State had attempted to prove those particular convictions at the previous sentencing hearing."' " Nichols v. State , 629 So.2d 51 , 57 (Ala.Cr.App. 1993) (quoting Connolly v. State , 602 So.2d 452 , 455 (Ala. 1992) (some emphasis [in Connolly ]; some emphasis [in Clements ])). "`The rule is that the state may use, at a second sentencing hearing, convictions other than those used at the first hearing, provided that proper notice has been given prior to both hearings. Connolly v. State , 602 So.2d 452 (Ala. 1992); Jackson v. State , 566 So.2d 758 (Ala. 1990). See al”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“" Cooper v. State , 632 So.2d 1342 , 1343-44 (Ala.Cr.App. 1993), aff'd, 632 So.2d 1344 (Ala. 1994) (`The record in this case shows that the appellant was not given notice, prior to the third sentencing hearing, of the convictions the state intended to prove. At the hearing, the appellant made numerous and timely objections to the failure to give notice.')."”
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.