790 So. 2d 550 - Major v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

68 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 75 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “WHETHER THE TRIAL COURT OR COUNSEL HAVE A DUTY TO ADVISE A DEFENDANT THAT HIS PLEA IN A PENDING CASE MAY HAVE SENTENCE ENHANCING CONSEQUENCES IF THE DEFENDANT COMMITS A NEW CRIME IN THE FUTURE?”

   18 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Melvin v. State · Major v. State

2. “[a]s a matter of common sense, a defendant is already under a legal duty not to go out and commit more crimes in the future, regardless of whether the penalty is `ordinary' or enhanced. Neither the court nor counsel is required to advise a defendant what penalty he can expect to receive for crimes not yet committed. The defendant can avoid further sentencing consequences, enhanced or otherwise, by refraining from committing new crimes. Future sentence enhancement for a later crime is not a direct consequence of a plea at all, but is instead contingent first on the defendant's voluntary decision to commit another crime; second, on whether the new crime is one capable of having enhanced sentencing; and third, on the prosecutor's discretionary decision whether to seek enhancement. Future sentence enhancement is plainly a collateral consequence, not a direct consequence, of the defendant's plea in the earlier case.”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Collier v. State · Hogan v. State

3. “definite, immediate, and largely automatic effect on the range of the defendant's punishment.”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Bolware v. State · Major v. State