776 So. 2d 243 - Glock v. Moore’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

1 federal appellate · 38 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 40 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “is not intended to be a procedure authorizing a fishing expedition for records unrelated to a colorable claim for postconviction relief.”

   5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Moore v. State · Mills v. State

2. ““[T]his Court has rejected similar challenges where the defendant had notice of the request for proposed orders and an opportunity to submit his or her own proposal and/or objections. See, e.g., Patton v. State, 784 So.2d 380, 386-91 (Fla.2000); Groover v. State, 640 So.2d 1077, 1078-79 (Fla.1994). In Groover , for example, this Court held that the trial court’s adoption of the State’s proposed order denying a capital defendant relief on his 3.850 motion did not constitute a due process violation where the trial court signed the State’s proposed order three days after defense counsel received a copy and the defendant had an opportunity to argue all of the issues in his brief and at a hearing. 640 So.2d at 1079 . The Court explained that even though the defendant did not have the ability to file his own proposed order, his ability to raise objections negated any due process concerns. See id.; see also Hardwick v. Dugger, 648 So.2d 100, 104 (Fla.1994) (holding that verbatim adoption of State’s proposed order on a capital defendant’s 3.850 motion was not error because both parties stipulated to the filing of post-hearing memoranda, the State served its proposed order on defense counsel months before the trial court signed the State’s order, and defense counsel filed an extensive response to the State’s proposed order). “On the other hand, this Court has found a due process violation to exist when the defendant was not served with a copy of the State’s proposed order or given an ”

   4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Bryan Fredrick Jennings v. State of Florida · Shonelle Andre Jackson v. State of Alabama.

3. “[i]t is not our prerogative to second-guess the application of this exclusive executive function. First, the principle of separation of powers requires the judiciary to adopt an extremely cautious approach in analyzing questions involving this admitted matter of executive grace. As noted in In re Advisory Opinion of the Governor, 334 So.2d 561, 562-63 (Fla.1976), “[t]his Court has always viewed the pardon powers expressed in the Constitution as being peculiarly within the domain of the executive branch of government.””

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Rutherford v. State · 91 So. 3d 769 - Gore v. State