Dan v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

1 district · 130 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 131 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “As a general rule, a hearing should be held on a Rule 40 petition for post-conviction relief where the petition states a colorable claim. To establish a colorable claim, the allegations of the petition must show that if taken as true the facts alleged would change the verdict, however, a petitioner's conclusions need not be regarded as true. Where examination of the record of the trial court proceedings indicates that the petitioner's allegations show no colorable claim, it is not error to deny the petition without a hearing. The question on appeal of a denial of a Rule 40 petition without a hearing is whether the trial record indicates that Petitioner's application for relief made such a showing of a colorable claim as to require a hearing before the lower court. State v. Allen, 7 Haw. App. 89, 92-93 , 744 P.2d 789, 792-93 (1987) (emphasis added). In this regard, the appellate court steps into the trial court's position, reviews the same trial record, and redecides the issue. Because the appellate court's determination of "whether the trial record indicates that Petitioner's application for relief made such a showing of a colorable claim as to require a hearing before the lower court" is a question of law, the trial court's decision is reviewed de novo. See United States v. Burrows, 872 F.2d 915 (9th Cir. 1989) (denial of a post-conviction motion based on ineffective assistance of counsel without conducting an evidentiary hearing is reviewed de novo for a determination of wh”

   18 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Fukusaku v. State · Barnett v. State

2. “A finding of fact is clearly erroneous when (1) the record lacks substantial evidence to support the finding, or (2) despite substantial evidence in support of the finding, the appellate court is nonetheless left with a definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been made.”

   13 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Birano v. State. · State v. Viernes

3. “A conclusion of law that is supported by the trial court's findings of fact and that reflects an application of the correct rule of law will not be overturned.”

   9 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Bukoski · State v. Kalili