925 So. 2d 1005 - Casey v. State’s Empirical Analysis
2005
Citation profile
5 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 6 later decisions — most recently December 2020
5 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 407 So. 2d 576 - Marvin v. State · 414 So. 2d 182 - Petty v. State · 481 So. 2d 1162 - Ex Parte Wesley
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 6 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“"Casey was originally indicted for robbery in the first degree, and on February 28, 1983, he pleaded guilty to attempted robbery in the first degree. He claims that the trial court had no jurisdiction to accept the plea because, he argues, the offense he was charged with and to which he pleaded guilty did not exist under Alabama law. In Petty v. State , 414 So.2d 182 , 183 (Ala.Crim.App. 1982), this Court said: "`Because the definition of robbery has been enlarged and expanded by the new criminal code, "the former offense of assault with intent to rob has been merged into the present offense of robbery." [ Marvin v. State , 407 So.2d 576 , 579 (Ala.Crim.App. 1981).] For this same reason the former crime of attempted robbery now constitutes robbery. Section 13A-8-43 (a) adds a definition that extends robbery to include conduct which occurs in an attempt to commit a theft or in flight after the attempt or commission. Section 13A-8-40 (b).' "The State concedes that because Casey pleaded guilty to an offense that does not exist, his conviction is void and should be set aside. In Ex parte Wesley , 481 So.2d 1162 , 1163 (Ala. 1985), the Alabama Supreme Court held that the State may reindict an appellant for the appropriate offense of robbery; in Ex parte Wesley , the appellant had previously been charged with robbery in the first degree, but that charge had been amended pursuant to a guilty-plea agreement to charge the non-existent offense of attempted robbery. Thus, while the firs”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage
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.