920 So. 2d 1069 - Ex Parte Robey’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

27 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 27 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “"In Ex parte Rice , 766 So.2d 143 , 148 (Ala. 1999), we recognized the longstanding proposition that `the Double Jeopardy Clause, as a general rule, prohibits the State from subjecting a defendant to multiple punishments for the same offense.' In Blockburger v. United States , 284 U.S. 299 , 304 (1932), the United States Supreme Court stated, `[W]here the same act or transaction constitutes a violation of two distinct statutory provisions, the test to be applied to determine whether there are two offenses or only one is whether each provision requires proof of a fact which the other does not.' "However, in Rice we stated, `Because we are dealing here with a single statute . . . that defines a single offense, the Blockburger test is not applicable.' 766 So.2d at 150 (citing Sanabria v. United States , 437 U.S. 54 , 70 n. 24 (1978)). We also stated in Rice that *when a statute provides alternative or different methods of committing the same offense, each alternative method is not to be treated as a separate offense.' 766 So.2d at 150 (citing Sisson v. State , 528 So.2d 1159 (Ala. 1988)). In the instant case, Robey was convicted of two counts of first-degree assault under two subsections of the same Code section. . . . "We conclude that the offense of first-degree assault under § 13A-6-20 (a) `may be committed by several different methods, and the State may allege and prove any one or all of those various methods in its attempt to establish the defendant's guilt.' Rice , 766 So.”

   5 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Ex Parte Benefield · Johnson v. State

2. “"The violation of Robey's double-jeopardy rights raises questions of the trial court's jurisdiction to enter a judgment on both assault counts. See Ex parte McKelvey, 630 So.2d 56 , 57 (Ala. 1992) (`If the trial court imposed the sentence on [the defendant] without jurisdiction to impose the consecutive sentences for *Page 94 burglary and theft, then [the defendant's] ground for appeal was not procedurally barred by his failure to object at his sentencing hearing.'). Therefore, Robey is not barred from asserting in this successive Rule 32 petition the violation of his double-jeopardy rights."”

   5 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Ex Parte Benefield · McPherson v. State

3. “In Ex parte Rice , 766 So.2d 143 , 148 (Ala. 1999), we recognized the longstanding proposition that `the Double Jeopardy Clause, as a general rule, prohibits the State from subjecting a defendant to multiple punishments for the same offense.' In Blockburger v. United States , 284 U.S. 299 , 304 (1932), the United States Supreme Court stated, `[W]here the same act or transaction constitutes a violation of two distinct statutory provisions, the test to be applied to determine whether there are two offenses or only one is whether each provision requires proof of a fact which the other does not.'”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Johnson v. State