Childers v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

14 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. “"When, as here, an indictment for first-degree robbery fails to set forth facts from which one might conclude that the defendant was aided in the robbery by another participant — an essential element of the offense of second-degree robbery — the insufficiency of the factual basis for a guilty plea to second-degree robbery may be subsequently attacked on the basis that the trial court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction to accept the plea. Had the trial court obtained Cole's consent to amend the indictment charging first-degree robbery by adding the fact that another participant was present, no new offense would have been charged because first-degree robbery is broad enough to include such an element. An indictment so amended, permitting a defendant to plead guilty to second-degree robbery, would not run afoul of Rule 13.5(a). That, however, did not occur here. To treat the proceedings in this case as if the original indictment included that additional fact just because Cole pleaded guilty would disregard the settled principle that one cannot consent to an improper amendment to an indictment."”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 922 So. 2d 137 - Johnson v. State

2. “In explicating [ Ex parte] Cole, [ 842 So.2d 605 (Ala.2002),] we are confronted with a number of Alabama precedents which address a foundational issue in Cole . Some are consistent with Cole , and some are not. Worse, those that are inconsistent with Cole are also inconsistent with Blockburger v. United States, 284 U.S. 299 , 52 S.Ct. 180 , 76 L.Ed. 306 (1932).”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 925 So. 2d 221 - Bradley v. State

3. “[i]n [ Ex parte ] Cole [, 842 So.2d 605 (Ala.2002),] this Court stated that the trial court, with the defendant's consent, can amend the indictment by adding the facts necessary to make second-degree robbery a lesser-included offense to the offense of first-degree robbery. 842 So.2d at 609 .”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Ex Parte State