740 So. 2d 1115 - Davis v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

1 federal appellate · 37 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 39 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “"`To prevail upon a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, a defendant must satisfy the two components articulated in Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 , 104 S.Ct. 2052 , 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984). The defendant must show that counsel's performance was deficient and that he was prejudiced by counsel's deficient performance. Strickland, supra. In Hill v. Lockhart, 474 U.S. 52 , 106 S.Ct. 366 , 88 L.Ed.2d 203 (1985), the Supreme Court held that the two-part Strickland test applies to challenges to guilty pleas based upon ineffective assistance of counsel.' " Holt v. State, 650 So.2d 530, 531-32 (Ala.Cr.App.1994). That burden is particularly stringent when a defendant enters a guilty plea. "`"In the context of guilty pleas, the first half of the Strickland v. Washington test is nothing more than a restatement of the standard of attorney competence already set forth in Tollett v. Henderson, [ 411 U.S. 258 , 93 S.Ct. 1602 , 36 L.Ed.2d 235 (1973)] and McMann v. Richardson, [ 397 U.S. 759 , 90 S.Ct. 1441 , 25 L.Ed.2d 763 (1970)]. The second, or `prejudice,' requirement, on the other hand, focuses on whether counsel's constitutionally ineffective performance affected the outcome of the plea process. In other words, in order to satisfy the `prejudice' requirement, the defendant must show that there is a reasonable probability that, but for counsel's errors, he would not have pleaded guilty and would have insisted on going to trial."' " Williams v. State, 596 So.2d 620, 623 (Ala.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 891 So. 2d 353 - Key v. State

2. “"` Cumbo v. State , 368 So.2d 871 , 874 (Ala.Cr.App.), cert. denied, 368 So.2d 877 (Ala. 1979), citing United States v. Black , 497 F.2d 1039 (5th Cir. 1974). Additionally, circumstantial evidence may form the proof of the corpus delicti; if facts are presented from which a jury may draw a reasonable inference that a crime has been committed, the case must be submitted to the jury. Breeding v. State , 523 So.2d 496 , 500 (Ala.Cr.App. 1987).' " MacEwan v. State , 701 So.2d 66 , 70-71 (Ala.Cr.App. 1997). "`"A defendant's guilt may be established by circumstantial evidence as well as by direct evidence. As long as the circumstantial evidence points to the guilt of the accused, it will support a conviction as strongly as direct evidence. In reviewing a conviction based on circumstantial evidence, `the test to be applied is whether the jury might reasonably find that the evidence excluded every reasonable [hypothesis] except that of guilt; not whether such evidence excludes every reasonable hypothesis but guilt, but whether a jury might reasonably so conclude.'" "` McMillian [v. State] , 594 So.2d [1253 ] at 1263 [(Ala.Cr.App. 1991)] (citations omitted). See also Potts v. State , 426 So.2d 886 (Ala.Cr.App. 1982), aff'd, 426 So.2d 896 (Ala. 1983). This statement of the law refers to cases in which the evidence is entirely circumstantial. "`"`The rule is clearly established in this State that a verdict of conviction should not be set aside on the ground of the insufficiency of the e”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 814 So. 2d 899 - Ward v. State

3. “"In Rowell v. State , 570 So.2d 848 (Ala.Cr.App. 1990), we held that evidence of uncharged crimes may properly be admitted under the following circumstances: "`"Evidence of the accused's commission of another crime is admissible if such other crime is inseparably connected with or is a part of the res gestae of the now-charged crime. This rule is often expressed in terms of the other crime and the now-charged crime being parts of one continuous transaction or one continuous criminal occurrence." C. Gamble, McElroy's Alabama Evidence (3d ed. 1977), § 69.01(3). See also Orr v. State , 462 So.2d 1013 , 1015 (Ala.Cr.App. *Page 1127 1984). "Evidence of other crimes is properly admissible as part of the res gestae if all of the criminal acts are part of one continuous criminal adventure by the same party occurring within a matter of hours."'"”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 861 So. 2d 1111 - Centobie v. State