814 So. 2d 310 - Fleming v. State’s Empirical Analysis
2001
Citation profile
6
cited by 6 later decisions
1
states following
August 2011
most recently cited
1 federal appellate · 5 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on 529 So. 2d 1074 - Ross v. State · 619 So. 2d 952 - Green v. State · White v. State · 612 So. 2d 1317 - Ford v. State · 649 So. 2d 216 - Glover 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 6 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“"The offense of first-degree receiving stolen property is not encompassed within the offense of first-degree theft charged in the indictment. They are separate and distinct offenses. See White v. State , 383 So.2d 888 (Ala.Crim. App. 1980) (the offense of larceny [now theft] and the offense of receiving stolen property are distinct and separate offenses); 52A C.J.S. Larceny § 5 (1968) (larceny and receiving stolen property are separate and distinct offenses and not degrees of the same offense). "Fleming was convicted of an offense for which he had not been indicted. This failure was a failure of an essential requisite of jurisdiction; the requirement that the offense be properly charged in an indictment was not waived by Fleming's guilty plea. See Glover v. State , 649 So.2d 216 , 218 (Ala.Crim.App. 1994); Ross [v. State , 529 So.2d 1074 (Ala.Crim.App. 1988)]."”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“The offense of first-degree receiving stolen property is not encompassed within the offense of first-degree theft charged in the indictment. They are separate and distinct offenses. See White v. State , 383 So.2d 888 (Ala.Crim. App. 1980) (the offense of larceny [now theft] and the offense of receiving stolen property are distinct and separate offenses); 52A C.J.S. Larceny § 5 (1968) (larceny and receiving stolen property are separate and distinct offenses and not degrees of the same offense).”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“[t]he trial court was without jurisdiction to accept [his] guilty plea[s] because under the facts of this case, second-degree receiving stolen property is not a lesser-included offense encompassed in the indictment.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
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.