794 So. 2d 1234 - Evans v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

16 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 16 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “Even constitutional issues must be properly preserved for appellate review. Brown v. State , 705 So.2d 871 , 875 (Ala.Crim.App. 1997). "`The general rules of preservation apply to probation revocation hearings. Puckett v. State , 680 So.2d 980 , 983 (Ala.Crim.App. 1996), citing Taylor v. State , 600 So.2d 1080 , 1081 (Ala.Crim.App. 1992). This court "has recognized, in probation revocation proceedings, only two exceptions to the general rule that issues not presented to the trial court are waived on appeal: (1) the requirement that there be an adequate written order of revocation . . ., and (2) the requirement that a revocation hearing actually be held.”

   7 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Cottle v. State · Hood v. State

2. “Owens v. State , 728 So.2d 673 , 680 (Ala.Crim.App. 1998). Additionally, as noted earlier, this Court recently held in Law [v. State , 778 So.2d 249 (Ala.Crim.App. 2000),] that a defendant can also raise for the first time on appeal that the trial court erred in failing to advise him of his right to request an attorney during probation revocation proceedings. 778 So.2d at 250 .”

   4 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. McCoo v. State · 895 So. 2d 1012 - Williams v. State

3. ““On appeal, Evans argues that he was denied the assistance of counsel at his probation revocation hearing, because he says, he was not informed that he could be represented by counsel at that proceeding. ... “We note initially that there is no automatic right to counsel in a probation revocation proceeding, and the right to counsel will be decided by the [circuit] court on a case-by-case basis. Law[ v. State, 778 So.2d 249 (Ala.Crim.App.2000) ]. ““[A] [circuit] court’s failure to inform an accused of his right to request counsel is not necessarily fatal to its case. ‘Unless [the probationer’s] revocation proceeding was one wherein the actual appointment of counsel was necessary to satisfy applicable due process requirements of fundamental fairness, then he would not have been entitled to have his request for counsel honored and the mere failure to have informed him of the right to make such a request could not have harmed him.’ ” ’ “Law, 778 So.2d at 251 (quoting Kitchens v. State, 234 Ga.App. 785, 787 , 508 S.E.2d 176, 179 (Ga.App.1998)). “At the revocation hearing in the present case, Evans admitted that he had violated the terms of his probation. In addition, there is nothing in the record to support a'finding that there were substantial reasons justifying or mitigating the violation. Evans, therefore, has failed to show that he was materially 'harmed by the absence of counsel.- The failure to inform Evans that he could be represented by counsel was not reversible error.””

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