818 So. 2d 626 - Bates v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

20 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 20 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “WHETHER ALLEGATIONS OF AFFIRMATIVE MISADVICE BY TRIAL COUNSEL ON THE SENTENCE-ENHANCING CONSEQUENCES OF A DEFENDANT'S PLEA FOR FUTURE CRIMINAL BEHAVIOR IN AN OTHERWISE FACIALLY SUFFICIENT MOTION ARE COGNIZABLE AS AN INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL CLAIM.”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Stansel v. State · State v. Dickey

2. “[W]here such misadvice leads a defendant to enter a plea he otherwise would not have entered, both the performance and prejudice prongs of Strickland [v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 , 104 S.Ct. 2052 , 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984),] are satisfied and the plea may be withdrawn.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
   e.g. Smith v. State · 830 So. 2d 899 - Alexander v. State

3. “On September 7, 1999, Appellant filed a Petition for Writ of Error Coram Nobis, seeking to have his 1990 conviction vacated. The trial court construed the petition as a Motion for Post-conviction Relief filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal procedure 3.850. Appellant alleged that he entered a plea of guilty to one count of constructive possession of cocaine on January 23, 1990, and was sentenced to 69 days in jail, with credit for 69 days served, to be followed by 12 months' probation, with early termination upon payment of court costs. His probation was terminated on February 7, 1991. He was subsequently convicted of an undisclosed felony in 1994, and his 1990 conviction and sentence was used as a predicate offense to habitualize him. In his motion, Appellant alleged as his first ground for relief that his trial counsel misadvised him on the future sentencing-enhancing consequences of his plea. He contended that upon questioning his counsel about the ramifications of his plea, his counsel assured him that his offense could never be used against him and that convictions for possession of controlled substances were excluded from use as a prior offense in the habitual offender statutes. He further alleged that he would not have entered a plea but would have proceeded to trial had he been advised of the possible future sentence-enhancing consequences of his plea.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 887 So. 2d 1214 - Bates v. State