832 So. 2d 664 - Avery v. State’s Empirical Analysis
2001
Citation profile
7
cited by 7 later decisions
1
states following
November 2010
most recently cited
7 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on 598 So. 2d 895 - Ex Parte Jackson · Ex Parte Ingram · 556 So. 2d 1094 - Sheats v. State · 652 So. 2d 198 - Ex Parte Walker · Alderman 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 7 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“"Under [ Ex parte] Ingram[, 675 So.2d 863 (Ala.1996)], the proper method for presenting an ineffective assistance of trial counsel claim that could not reasonably be presented in a motion for a new trial is by filing a Rule 32 petition. "`If the appellant was convicted before the Alabama Supreme Court's decision in Ingram, newly appointed appellate counsel could have presented claims of ineffective assistance of trial counsel in a motion for new trial filed pursuant to Ex parte Jackson, 598 So.2d 895 (Ala.1992). Those same claims of ineffective assistance of trial counsel could have then been presented on direct appeal. Accordingly, if the appellant was convicted before the decision in Ingram, and the appellant was, in fact, represented by separate appellate counsel, then the allegations of ineffective assistance of trial counsel presented in the Rule 32 petition are precluded from review, because the claims could have been, but were not, raised at trial and on appeal. Rule 32.2(a)(3) and (5), Ala.R.Crim.P. If, however, the appellant was convicted after Ingram, the appellant is not necessarily precluded from raising allegations of ineffective assistance of trial counsel in a Rule 32 petition. If the appellant can establish that appellate counsel could not have reasonably asserted all the allegations of ineffective assistance of trial counsel in a timely filed motion for new trialthereby preserving the claims for review on direct appealthen the appellant is not precluded fro”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“precluded from relief by operation of law as these allegations could have been, but were not, raised on appeal. Rule 32.2(a)(5), Alabama Rules Criminal Procedure.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“[t]he court shall make specific findings of fact relating to each material issue of fact presented.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Dedeaux v. State
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.