Valdes v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

30 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 30 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “"In that case, the district court found that the trial court could have treated an untimely 3.850 motion as a 3.800(a) motion to correct an illegal sentence resulting from a Hale error, `because his Hale claim is apparent from the face of the record.' The court in Valdes , however, did not rely upon inadmissible hearsay contained in police reports, but rather relied upon the facts established in the transcript of the defendant's jury trial, which was part of the record from the defendant's previous direct appeal. There is no such record information available to rely on in this case."”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent
   e.g. Johnson v. Moore · 831 So. 2d 137 - Burgess v. State

2. “not irretrievably foreclose relief from consecutively-imposed habitual offender sentences growing out of the same criminal episode by means of rule 3.800, without regard to the time constraints of rule 3.850(b).”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 790 So. 2d 513 - West v. State