875 So. 2d 586 - Hamilton v. State’s Empirical Analysis
2004
Citation profile
4 federal appellate · 26 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 34 later decisions (2 by the Supreme Court) — most recently February 2018 · most notably 901 So. 2d 810 - Bryant v. State (2005), 898 So. 2d 25 - Arbelaez v. State (2005)
4 federal appellate · 26 state decisions
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
Relationships
Relies on Strickland v. Washington · Apprendi v. New Jersey · Bruton v. United States · Ring v. Arizona · Castro-Jimenez v. United States
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 34 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Where a motion for post-conviction relief under rule 3.850 lacks any substantial factual allegations, or where the facts alleged, even if true, would not render the judgment vulnerable to collateral attack, the motion may be summarily denied without examination of the record. But where the motion contains allegations of substantial material facts stating a claim cognizable in post-conviction proceedings, the motion must be evaluated in light of the trial record. Steinhorst’s allegations were sufficiently adequate to at least require an examination of the record. It appears in this case that the circuit court judge did not examine the trial record and did not have the record before him when ruling on appellant’s rule 3.850 motion.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“A motion for postconviction relief can be denied without an evidentiary hearing when the motion and the record conclusively demonstrate that the mov-ant is entitled to no relief. A defendant may not simply file a motion for postcon-viction relief containing conclusory allegations that his or her trial counsel was ineffective and then expect to receive an evidentiary hearing. The defendant must allege specific facts that, when considering the totality of the circumstances, are not conclusively rebutted by the record and that demonstrate a deficiency on the part of counsel which is detrimental to the defendant.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“Trial counsel was well prepared and well informed with respect to Hamilton's family, and simply made a reasonable, tactical decision not to present certain family members during the penalty phase ...”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
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.