841 So. 2d 409 - Cole v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

22 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 23 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “Cole did not include this claim in his rule 3.850 motion; instead, Cole made an oral request for the DNA testing at the Huff hearing. [ Huff v. State, 622 So.2d 982 (Fla.1993)]. The trial court summarily denied Cole's request without explanation. We note that the trial court's denial of Cole's DNA request came prior to the effective date of section 925.11, Florida Statutes (2001), and Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.853 (DNA testing). We do not address Cole's request for relief at this time except to state that our decision should not be read to prohibit Cole from seeking such testing pursuant to the mandates of section 925.11 and rule 3.853.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 895 So. 2d 398 - Cole v. State

2. “We find no error in the trial court's conclusion that Cole was not entitled to an evidentiary hearing to present what the trial court found would have been cumulative evidence. See Valle v. State, 705 So.2d 1331, 1334-35 (Fla.1997) (affirming trial court's summary denial of ineffective assistance claim based on allegation that trial counsel failed to present cumulative evidence).”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Whitfield v. State

3. “The general allegation that mitigating evidence could have been better presented [had co-counsel been requested and appointed] is an insufficient allegation of prejudice.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Evans v. State