877 So. 2d 468 - Putnam v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

5 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 5 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “According to [the armed-robbery] statute, a person can be convicted of armed robbery while attempting to complete the crime.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. James F. Putnam v. State of Mississippi · Bryan Morton v. State of Mississippi

2. “Putnam has failed to meet the requirements under Strickland [v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687 , 104 S.Ct. 2052 , 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984)]. Of all of the alleged errors- of counsel, Putnam only applies the Strickland test to his counsel’s failure to inform him as to the requirement that a person must take and carry away the property of another in order to be convicted of armed robbery. As noted above, this requirement is unnecessary. The law in this state allows for a conviction of armed robbery in circumstances where the defendant has attempted the crime. Such was the situation in the present case. It is impossible for Putnam to prove that the absence of this advice from his attorney would have affected the outcome at trial. Moreover, we find Putnam’s claim that he received no assistance of counsel at the evidentiary hearing to be without merit. First, “[a] criminal defendant has neither a state nor a federal constitutional right to appointed counsel in post-conviction proceedings.” Moore v. State, 587 So.2d 1193, 1195 (Miss. 1991) (citing Pennsylvania v. Finley, 481 U.S. 551 , 107 S.Ct. 1990 , 95 L.Ed.2d 539 (1987)). The Mississippi [Uniform Postconviction] Collateral Relief Act [ (UPCCRA) ] states that a judge may appoint counsel for a qualified petitioner. Miss. Code Ann. § 99-39-23 (1) (Rev. 2000) .... In other words, it is within the judge’s discretion. Second, the record indicates that the trial judge notified Putnam’s attorney at the time regarding the hearing. As noted ”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. James F. Putnam v. State of Mississippi

3. “As to Putnam’s second alleged error, we also find it to be without merit. Uniform Circuit and County Court Rule 7.06 requires that “the indictment upon which the defendant is to be tried shall be a plain, concise and definite written statement of the essential facts constituting the offense charged and shall fully notify the defendant of the nature and cause of the accusation.” Likewise, it is well settled that “every fact which is an element in a prima facie case of guilty must be stated in the indictment.” The indictment states that Putnam “did willfully, unlawfully and feloniously attempt to take and carry away from the presence and against the will of Robert Earl Williamson, personal property ... by putting the said Robert Earl Williamson in fear of immediate injury to his person, by the exhibition of a deadly weapon, to wit a handgun, contrary to the form of the statute in such cases made and provided, and against the peace and dignity of the State of Mississippi.” Moreover, the language of the indictment tracks the statute. Under Mississippi Code Annotated [sjection 97-3-79 ..., “every person who shall felo-niously take or attempt to take from the person or from the presence the personal property of another and against his will by violence to his person or by putting such person in fear of immediate injury to his person by the exhibition of a deadly weapon shall be guilty of robbery ....””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. James F. Putnam v. State of Mississippi