846 So. 2d 370 - Poole v. State’s Empirical Analysis

2002

Citation profile

cited by 35 later decisions

states following

July 2016

most recently cited

33 state decisions

Relationships

Applies 18 U.S.C. § 2113 · 21 U.S.C. § 841 (§ 401 of the Controlled Substances Act) · 8 U.S.C. § 1326 (§ 276 of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (McCarran-Walter))

Relies on Apprendi v. New Jersey · Almendarez-Torres v. United States · In the Matter of Samuel Winship · Gideon v. Wainwright · Teague v. Lane

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

“". . . . "... [C]onstitutional defects must be objected to in the trial court before we may review them on appeal. See Barrett v. State, 705 So.2d 529 (Ala.Crim. App.1996); Puckett v. State, 680 So.2d 980 (Ala.Crim.App.1996); Andersen v. State, 418 So.2d 967 (Ala.Crim.App. 1982); Hansen v. State, 598 So.2d 1 (Ala.Crim.App.1991); Cagle v. State, 504 So.2d 1225 (Ala.Crim.App.1987); Crosslin v. State, 540 So.2d 98 (Ala.Crim.App. 1988). Therefore, before this Court will review an alleged Apprendi violation, the defendant must object in the trial court. ... ". . . . "... [T]he Apprendi holding implies that the failure to allege in the indictment the location of the crime does not affect the validity of the indictment, i.e., does not rise to the level of a jurisdictional defect. Had the defect in Apprendi amounted to a jurisdictional defect that would invalidate the indictment, a reviewing court would, ex mero motu, be charged with noticing the defect. See Ex parte Hargett, 772 So.2d 481 (Ala.Crim.App.1999). The Supreme Court did not hold in Apprendi that the underlying conviction was due to be vacated."”
10 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
e.g. Lightfoot v. State · Phelps v. State
“a case in which a judgment of conviction has been rendered, the availability of appeal exhausted, and the time for a petition for certiorari elapsed or a petition for certiorari finally denied.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
e.g. 947 So. 2d 1079 - Harris v. State
“Matters concerning unauthorized sentences are jurisdictional,”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
e.g. 860 So. 2d 900 - Calloway 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.