846 So. 2d 472 - Logan v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

1 federal appellate · 137 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 140 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “[W]e will not entertain pro se extraordinary writ petitions from criminal defendants seeking affirmative relief in the context of pending trial court criminal cases, where it is clear from the face of the petitions that the petitioners are represented by counsel in the pending criminal proceedings and the petitioners do not clearly indicate that they are seeking to discharge counsel in those proceedings. If a petition clearly indicates that the petitioner is represented by counsel in the pending criminal proceeding, and the petitioner does not. unequivocally seek to discharge counsel in that proceeding by way of the petition, the petition will be dismissed as unauthorized. In circumstances where it is not clear from the face of the petition whether the petitioner is represented by counsel in the pending criminal proceeding, and he or she does not unequivocally indicate in the petition that he or she is seeking to discharge counsel in that proceeding, the clerk's office will automatically issue an order directing the petitioner to show cause why the petition should not be dismissed as unauthorized. At that point, it will be the petitioner's burden to demonstrate that he or she is either not represented by counsel in the proceeding below, or that he or she is seeking through the petition to discharge counsel in that proceeding. If it is clear from the petitioner's response to the show cause order that he or she is represented by counsel in the proceeding below and is not seekin”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Clark v. Attorney General · Rentas v. State

2. “[T]he requirements of Nelson depend upon a clear and unequivocal statement from the criminal defendant that he wishes to discharge counsel.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Mansfield v. State · Blanding v. State

3. “[G]eneralized complaints about court- appointed counsel's trial strategy or lack of contact or communication with the defendant do not constitute the kind of unequivocal request to discharge counsel necessary to trigger the requirements of Nelson.”

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