Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 786 SO2D 554 - State v. Perry

State v. Perry’s Empirical Analysis

2001

Citation profile

21
cited by 21 later decisions
1
states following
July 2013
most recently cited

21 state decisions

Relationships

Relies on Gideon v. Wainwright · 316 So. 2d 267 - Williams v. State · 750 So. 2d 592 - Wood v. State · 756 So. 2d 42 - Peart v. State · 371 So. 2d 482 - Hallman v. State

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

  1. “The second element [i.e., that the defendant understand the nature of the charge and the consequences of the plea] requires that a defendant be sufficiently informed so that he or she understands the consequences of his or her plea—that the defendant realizes the decision to plead guilty waives some of his or her constitutional rights, like the right to a jury trial, as well as other significant consequences. Williams, 316 So.2d at 271. This Court accordingly has permitted a writ of error coram nobis where the petitioner asserted he was not informed his plea could constitute a "prior offense" in subsequent proceedings. See Wood v. State, 750 So.2d 592 (Fla.1999).”
    4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “The petition should fully assert the evidence upon which the alleged facts may be proven and the source of such evidence. The facts upon which the petition is based must have been unknown at trial, and it must appear that the defendant and counsel could not have known of them by the use of diligence. When the alleged facts are sufficient in legal effect — meaning that if the alleged facts had been known by the trial court at the previous hearing the court probably would not have entered a judgment against the defendant — the next step is for the trial court to determine the truth of the allegations in an evidentiary hearing.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority

How this case has been treated — in progress

Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.