716 So. 2d 242 - Andersch v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

12 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 12 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “"If the appellant was convicted before the Alabama Supreme Court's decision in [ Ex parte] Ingram , [ 675 So.2d 863 (Ala. 1996),] newly appointed appellate counsel could have presented claims of ineffective assistance of trial counsel in a motion for new trial filed pursuant to Ex parte Jackson , 598 So.2d 895 (Ala. 1992). Those same claims of ineffective assistance of trial counsel could have then been presented on direct appeal. Accordingly, if the appellant was convicted before the decision in Ingram , and the appellant was, in fact, represented by separate appellate counsel, then the allegations of ineffective assistance of trial counsel presented in the Rule 32 petition are precluded from review, because the claims could have been, but were not, raised at trial and on appeal. Rule 32.2(a)(3) and (5), Ala.R.Crim.P."”

   4 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. V.R. v. State · 832 So. 2d 664 - Avery v. State

2. “The Rule 32 petition represents the appellant's first opportunity to present [an ineffective assistance of appellate counsel claim] to the circuit court.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 832 So. 2d 664 - Avery v. State