Peterka v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

1 federal appellate · 13 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 14 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “Briefly stated, Peterka fled Nebraska in February 1989 after being sentenced to a one-year prison term for theft. He reappeared in Niceville, Florida, and sometime in April 1989, he moved into a rental duplex with Russell because Russell was having difficulty paying the rent. On June 27, 1989, Peterka obtained a duplicate driver’s license with his picture and Russell’s name. Peterka then cashed a $300 money order that was payable to Russell and had been mailed to Russell by a relative. Russell suspected that Peterka had stolen the money order but told several people that he was not going to confront Peterka, who kept a gun at the house. Russell was reported missing by his friend and co-worker, Gary Johnson, on July 13, 1989. Sheriffs Deputy Daniel Harkins questioned Peterka about Russell’s whereabouts, and subsequently ran Peterka’s name and birth date in the sheriffs office’s computer, which indicated that Peterka was a fugitive from Nebraska with an outstanding warrant. Peterka was arrested early the next morning. On July 18, 1989, Peterka gave a statement to police in which he admitted shooting Russell. This Court[, the Florida Supreme Court,] summarized Peter-ka’s statement as follows: Peterka forged Russell’s signature and cashed the money order. He paid Russell one hundred dollars to use Russell’s identification. Russell instigated a shoving match over the money order that escalated into a fight in the living room of the duplex. Both men reached for Peterka’s gun, but P”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Peterka v. McNeil

2. “Although Peterka testified at the evi-dentiary hearing that he was never asked about his military record, Harlee [sic] testified that he believed he had been apprised of Peterka’s military service, and both Loveless and Investigator Graham testified that they knew Peter-ka had military experience. Moreover, both Graham and Loveless testified that the penalty phase form used by the Public Defender’s Office in the regular course of business in 1989 had a space for military background. Thus, there is competent, substantial evidence to support the trial court’s finding that trial counsel asked Peterka about and was aware of Peterka’s military history. There is also competent, substantial evidence to support the trial court’s finding that trial counsel made a reasoned tactical decision not to present this evidence in mitigation. Harlee [sic] testified that in this case there was a “negative” side to the military service mitigation because Peterka’s illegal conduct led to his discharge from the National Guard. Harlee [sic] believed that because the trial was being held in “a very heavy military area,” Peterka’s conduct could be viewed as “besmirching the name of the military.” Fearing that the prosecutor would “come back and destroy” it if Peterka’s military service was highlighted, Harlee [sic] decided not to pursue this mitigation. Thus, Har-lee’s [sic] tactical decision not to focus on Peterka’s military service as a mitigating circumstance was not deficient performance.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Peterka v. McNeil

3. “The record supports the trial court’s finding that much of the evidence presented at the evidentiary hearing was cumulative to the evidence presented by counsel at trial. Further, Peterka’s father was unable to testify at trial because he was having symptoms of a heart attack during that time and Peter-ka’s mother testified at the evidentiary hearing that she would not have wanted Peterka’s siblings exposed to the trial because of their ages at that time. Thus, trial counsel were not ineffective for failing to have these witnesses testify-”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Peterka v. McNeil