Ex Parte Coleman’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

4 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 4 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““Coleman contends that his decision to plead guilty to the four offenses ‘was based solely upon counsel’s representations of parole and work-release eligibility’ and that, had he known that he was actually ineligible for parole and work release because of the nature of the offenses, he would not have pleaded guilty but, instead, ‘would have insisted on proceeding to trial.’ Coleman’s brief, p. 10.... “Coleman has alleged facts that, if true, would entitle him to relief. As noted, Coleman alleged in the Rule 32 petition that, but for his attorney’s misrepresentations concerning Coleman’s eligibility for parole and work release, he would not have pleaded guilty but, instead, would have insisted on going to trial. See Winbush [v. State, 18 So.3d 423 (Ala.Crim.App.2009) ] (citing Hill v. Lockhart, 474 U.S. 52, 58-59 (1985)). Furthermore, in his affidavit, Coleman alleged ‘special circumstances that might support the conclusion that he placed particular emphasis on his parole eligibility in deciding whether or not to plead guilty.’ See Hill, 474 U.S. at 60 . Specifically, Coleman alleged that he had no reason to plead guilty to a 20-year sentence without the possibility of parole or work release because, Coleman said, ‘at my age of 63, a 20 year sentence is a life sentence.’ Therefore, if the allegations of Coleman’s petition are taken as true, Coleman placed ‘particular emphasis’ on his attorney’s statements regarding his eligibility for parole and work release in deciding to acc”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 76 So. 3d 286 - Charlie Stith v. State of Alabama.