Phillips 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 15 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““Upon revocation of the probation of a defendant sentenced under the Split Sentence Act, if the circuit court does not order execution of the full sentence originally imposed at sentencing, but instead continues the split sentence and increases the confinement portion of the split sentence, the total length of the confinement portion of the split sentence may not exceed three years. See Havis v. State, 710 So.2d 527, 528-29 (Ala.Cr.App.1997); § 15-18-8(a), Ala.Code 1975.””

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 912 So. 2d 292 - Dixon v. State · 903 So. 2d 883 - Cribbs v. State

2. “"The circuit court's order purporting to increase the confinement portion of Phillips's split sentence was entered more than 12 months after Phillips's sentence was originally imposed — long past the period during which the circuit court had jurisdiction to modify Phillips's sentence either pursuant to a motion to modify or `ex mero motu.' Hollins v. State , 737 So.2d 1056 (Ala.Cr.App. 1998). See Ex parte Hayden , 531 So.2d 940 , 941 (Ala.Cr.App. 1988) (`Since there was no motion for new trial or request to modify sentence filed with 30 days of sentencing, the trial judge lost all jurisdiction to modify the defendant's sentence.'). The only manner in which the circuit court could properly exercise jurisdiction to increase the confinement portion of Phillips's split sentence was through a probation revocation proceeding. In Leonard v. State , 686 So.2d 554 (Ala.Cr.App. 1996), this court held: "`When a split sentence is imposed and the period for filing a petition to modify a sentence has expired, in order for the trial court to revoke probation and impose the original sentence of imprisonment, the procedural due process rights of the defendant must be protected; the court must conduct a proper revocation proceeding.' " 686 So.2d at 555 . In Phillips's case, the circuit court, in its order of May 6, 1998, did not order execution of the full 15-year sentence originally imposed at Phillips's sentencing, but instead continued the split sentence and increased the confinement portio”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 912 So. 2d 292 - Dixon v. State

3. “"`(2) The probationer admits, under the requirements of Rule 27.6(c), that he committed the alleged violation.' "Rule 27.6(c), Ala. R.Crim. P., states: " `Before accepting an admission by a probationer that the probationer has violated a condition or regulation of probation or an instruction issued by the probation officer, the court shall address the probationer personally and shall determine that the probationer understands the following: "`(1) The nature of the violation to which an admission is offered; "`(2) The right under [Rule 27.6] section (b) to be represented by counsel; "`(3) The right to testify and to present witnesses and other evidence on probationer's own behalf and to cross-examine adverse witnesses under [Rule 27.6] subsection (d)(1); and " `(4) That, if the alleged violation involves a criminal offense for which the probationer has not yet been tried, the probationer may still be tried for that offense, and although the probationer may not be required to testify, that any statement made by the probationer at the present proceeding may be used against the probationer at a subsequent proceeding or trial. "`The court shall also determine that the probationer waives these rights, that the admission is voluntary and not the result of force, threats, coercion, or promises, and that there is a factual basis for the admission.' "While the case action summary indicates that Whitlock's probation-revocation hearing was set for August 20, 2004, the record does not con”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 936 So. 2d 551 - Lee v. State