Gist v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

7 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 7 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “Comment (b) to the Uniform Rule of Criminal Procedure, which parallels our Rule 15(c), W.R.Cr.P., states that the goal of this part of the rule is to produce a record which will affirmatively show that a plea of guilty was intelligent and voluntary. The rule is designed to establish that the defendant’s waiver of his rights to a jury trial, confrontation of witnesses, and the protection against self-incrimination is made with understanding of the effect of his act.... The American Bar Association Standards for Criminal Justice asserts the same goal and suggests that ‘the court ... take such other steps as may be necessary to assure itself that the guilty plea is entered with complete understanding of the consequences.’ The comment to that standard does note that the standard recognizes that ‘[a] court cannot be expected to explain to a defendant in detail all of the rights that are relinquished by pleading guilty[.] The ‘critically important’ factor is that a plea of guilty must be intelligently entered. ... In McCarthy v. United States, 394 U.S. 459 , 89 S.Ct. 1166 , 22 L.Ed.2d 418 (1969), the observation was made that ‘the procedure embodied in Rule 11 has not been held to be constitutionally mandated.’ The court further says that ‘it is designed to assist the district judge in making the constitutionally required determination that a defendant’s guilty plea is voluntary.’ ... A further reason noted in McCarthy is the need to provide a complete record of the proceedings and”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Dobbins v. State

2. “It is true that we have adopted a disciplined approach to post-conviction relief and have concluded that it is not to be invoked as a substitute for a direct appeal, nor should it be treated like a direct appeal. Cutbirth v. State, 751 P.2d 1257 (Wyo.1988); Pote v. State, 733 P.2d 1018 (Wyo.1987); Munoz v. Maschner, 590 P.2d 1352 (Wyo.1979). The effect of our rulings is to foreclose from consideration under post-conviction relief those questions which could have been presented on direct appeal. In so doing, we honor the rule of res judicata and promote the concept of finality. This stance is supportive of those considerations of judicial economy which suggest that a review of certain issues is best accomplished by direct appeal. Furthermore, we limit consideration of post-conviction relief to those motions which raise questions of constitutional magnitude and manifest a miscarriage of justice. Cutbirth; Wright v. State, 718 P.2d 35 (Wyo.1986).”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Nixon v. State

3. “In this instance, while the court did not comply with Rule 15(c), W.R.Cr.P., at the change of plea proceeding, a reading of all the proceedings relating to the initial plea and the change of plea affirmatively demonstrates that the trial court discharged its constitutional obligations and duties to Gist ... [T]he constitutional right to which Gist was entitled was not simply the mechanical reading of Rule 15, W.R.Cr.P. Gist’s constitutional right was the right not to be convicted except upon a knowing, intelligent, and voluntary plea ... We agree with the district court that he was not deprived of his constitutional rights.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Dobbins v. State