Ex Parte 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. “"[d]id, in the course of committing a theft of a purse, wallet, glasses and/or watch . . . use force against the person of the owner or any person present . . . with intent to overcome her physical resistance or physical power of resistance, or [did] threaten the imminent use of force against the person of the owner or any person present . . . with intent to compel acquiescence to the taking of or escaping with the property, while [Allen] was armed with a deadly weapon or dangerous instrument, a gun . . .[;] "[d]id, in the course of committing a theft of wallet and/or debit card . . . use force against the person of the owner or any person present . . . with intent to overcome his physical resistance or physical power of resistance, or [did] threaten the imminent use of force against the person of the owner or any person present . . . with intent to compel acquiescence to the taking of or escaping with the property, while [Allen] was armed with a deadly weapon or dangerous instrument, a gun . . .[; and] "[d]id, in the course of committing a theft of purse and/or keys . . . use force against the person of the owner or any person present . . . with intent to overcome her physical resistance or physical power of resistance, or [did] threaten the imminent use of force against the person of the owner or any person present . . . with intent to compel acquiescence to the taking of or escaping with the property, while [Allen] was armed *Page 301 with a deadly weapon or dangerous inst”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Allen v. State · 925 So. 2d 221 - Bradley v. State

2. “"specifically required an indictment to be amended, whether formally or informally, by adding any facts necessary to bring the lesser charge within the scope of the indictment. Not only must the record support such a charge, but also more is required — the affirmative act of adding to the indictment a fact supporting the charge. "”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 922 So. 2d 137 - Johnson v. State · 929 So. 2d 486 - Moss v. State

3. “"`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.' " Cole , 842 So.2d at 609 (emphasis added [in Wright ]). "The State's argument hinges on the meaning of the above-quoted language. The State seizes upon our mention in Cole of `the insufficiency of the factual basis for a guilty plea to second-degree robbery.' The State argues that this phrase indicates that there must be an actual factual insufficiency before an amendment charging a les”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 922 So. 2d 137 - Johnson v. State · 243 So. 3d 855 - Hutcherson v. State