887 So. 2d 304 - Benton v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

1 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 1 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “"An individual who pleads guilty to capital murder faces only two possible punishments — life imprisonment without the possibility of parole or the death penalty. Given these circumstances, together with the plain language of § 13A-5-42 , it seems clear that the Legislature's intent was to provide individuals pleading guilty to the most serious criminal offense encompassed in Alabama law an elevated level of appellate review. . . . Such a conclusion is consistent with this Court's holdings in Davis v. State , 682 So.2d 476 , 479 n. 2 (Ala.Crim.App. 1995); Elder v. State , 494 So.2d 922 , 923 (Ala.Crim.App. 1986); and Cox v. State , 462 So.2d 1047 , 1051 (Ala.Crim.App. 1985), which recognize that when a defendant pleads guilty to capital murder the State must nevertheless prove each element of capital murder beyond a reasonable doubt to the jury, and that such a requirement is jurisdictional. ". . . [A]llowing a defendant to challenge the sufficiency of the State's evidence in a capital-murder guilty-plea proceeding is consistent with the plain language of § 13A-5-42 , which makes no distinction regarding a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence based on the sentence imposed."”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
   e.g. 992 So. 2d 686 - Ex Parte Booker

2. “"However, those cases [ Cox and Elder ] and § 13A-5-42 , Ala. Code 1975, do not stand for the proposition that the sufficiency of the evidence must be reviewed on direct appeal, whether or not preserved at the trial court level, or on collateral review if a direct appeal has not been pursued. Rather, the jurisdictional matter to which they refer is the procedural requirement that, when a defendant pleads guilty to a capital offense, the State must still prove the defendant's guilt to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt. To hold otherwise would provide for plain error review in a non-death-penalty case and would thus violate the plain language of Rules 45A and 45B, Ala. R.App. P."”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
   e.g. 992 So. 2d 686 - Ex Parte Booker

3. “"A defendant who is indicted for a capital offense may plead guilty to it, but the state must in any event prove the defendant's guilt of the capital offense beyond a reasonable doubt to a jury. The guilty plea may be considered in determining whether the state has met that burden of proof. The guilty plea shall have the effect of waiving all nonjurisdictional defects in the proceeding resulting in the conviction except the sufficiency of the evidence. A defendant convicted of a capital offense after pleading guilty to it shall be sentenced according to the provisions of Section 13A-5-43 (d)."”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
   e.g. 992 So. 2d 686 - Ex Parte Booker