Harrison v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1995
Citation profile
9 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 9 later decisions — most recently October 2015
9 state decisions
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
Relationships
Relies on Schellert v. State · State v. Jones · State v. Simpson · Hattemar v. State · Welch v. State
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 9 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[The Court]: And do you understand the plea agreement that your attorney just talked about? [Defendant]: Yes, sir. [The Court]: And are you satisfied with that? [Defendant]: Yes, sir. [The Court]: Do you want the court to accept that? [Defendant]: Yes, sir. [The Court]: And do you know what it means when she says it is a non-binding recommendation for concurrent terms? [Defendant]: I, Yeah, I do. [The Court]: Well, concurrent means they all run together. [Defendant]: Right. [The Court]: And when we say nonbinding recommendation, that means that the court can, does not have to accept the recommendation. And if I don’t, if I don’t accept that recommendation, then you will have no recourse at all. You will not be permitted to withdraw your plea. Do you understand that? [Defendant]: Yes, sir. [The Court]: Knowing all of that, do you still want to proceed under this plea agreement here today? [Defendant]: Yes, Sir.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Thomas“In this case, defendant was represented by counsel, and defendant’s own counsel articulated the agreement as involving the dismissal of certain counts in return for a guilty plea and then stated also “that the state would make a non-binding recommendation for concurrent sentences.” The prosecutor also referred to a “non-binding recommendation to the court” for concurrent time in all four matters. In questioning, the court then made sure that it was clear what was understood by the term “non-binding.” Consequently, we see this case as distinguishable from Schellert.... [T]he court rejected only the non-binding recommendation, which everyone understood the court was free to do without having to allow defendant to withdraw her plea. We hold that in this case the plea court did not reject the plea agreement, and therefore there was no violation of Rule 24.02(d)(4) or Schellert.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Thomas“[Defense Counsel]: And in CR190-502F, the defendant would enter a plea of guilty as charged. In CR190-2214F, the defendant would plead to Count I. And at the time of sentencing, Counts II and III will be dismissed. In CR190-1892F, the State would amend to a class “D” felony. And the defendant would enter a plea of guilty to that offense. And further, that the State would make a non-binding recommendation for concurrent sentences. [The Court]: All right. Now then, Mr. Prosecutor, that is the plea agreement as you understand it to be? [Prosecutor]: Yes, your honor. There is a non-binding recommendation to the court from the State for concurrent time in all four matters.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Thomas
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.