71 So. 3d 12 - Smith v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

14 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 19 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “The Alabama Supreme Court ... did not adopt any 'margin of error' when examining a defendant's IQ score”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Hall v. Florida · Smith v. State

2. ““Smith made only a general claim in his second amended petition that counsel was ineffective because of the inadequate compensation paid to court-appointed attorneys in capital cases. Smith cited no specific instance where counsel’s performance was ineffective based on the statutory cap. ‘The burden of pleading under Rule 32.3 and Rule 32.6(b) is a heavy one. Conclusions unsupported by specific facts will not satisfy the requirements of Rule 32.3 and Rule 32.6(b). The full factual basis must be included in the petition itself.’ Hyde v. State, 950 So.2d 344, 356 (Ala.Crim.App.2006). Thus, Smith failed to meet his burden of pleading in regard to this claim. See Rule 32.6(b), Ala. R.Crim. P. As we stated in McNabb v. State, 991 So.2d 313, 320 (Ala.Crim.App.2007): “ ‘[S]ummary denial of this claim was proper because, as the circuit court found, McNabb failed to meet his burden of pleading sufficiently or with specificity facts to support his claim. See, e.g., Duncan v. State, 925 So.2d 245 (Ala.Crim.App.2005) (summary denial of claim that counsel was ineffective as a result of inadequate compensation was proper where petitioner failed to allege how counsel’s performance would have been different had the statutory compensation scheme been different).’ “Also, on direct appeal this Court specifically addressed the substantive issue underlying this claim and found no error. We addressed the issue under the preserved-error standard of review. Counsel cannot be held ineffective for fai”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Shonelle Andre Jackson v. State of Alabama.

3. ““ ‘In Thomas v. State, 766 So.2d 860, 892 (Ala.Crim.App.1998), the Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals held that “claims of failure to investigate must show-with specificity what information would have been obtained with ■ investigation, and' whether, assuming the evidence is admissible, its admission would-have produced-a different result.” In Woods v. State, [ 957 So.2d 492 (Ala.Crim.App.2004)], the Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals reviewed the circuit court’s summary dismissal of Woods’s postconviction claim that his defense counsel were ineffective for failing to interview member of his family. The. Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals held that the circuit court’s holding that Woods’s allegation did hot meet the specificity and full factual pleading requirements of Rule 32.6(b) was correct and adopted the circuit court’s findings that “Woods fail[ed] to identify any family member by name, proffer what their testimony would have been at’trial, or argue why such testimony would'have caused a different result at the penalty phase or at sentencing.” Id. “ ‘If the specificity and, factual pleading requirements of Rule 32.6(b) mean anything, ’ certainly they would require a postconviction petitioner, or his counsel, to identify.for a court reviéwing a Rulé 32 petition to name [sic] the witnesses a defense attorney should have interviewed and proffer what beneficial information the specific witnesses could have providéd at trial. Smith fails to identify in Part I.C(l) of his second”

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