Conover v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

1 federal appellate · 18 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 19 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “the Post-Conviction Procedure Act was neither designed nor intended to provide applicants another direct appeal. Walker v. State, 933 P.2d 327, 330 (Okl.Cr.1997) (interpreting Act as amended); Fox v. State, 880 P.2d 383, 384 (Okl.Cr.1994), cert. denied, 514 U.S. 1005 , 115 S.Ct. 1318 , 131 L.Ed.2d 199 (1995) (same conclusion under Act before amendments). The Act has always provided petitioners with very limited grounds upon which to base a collateral attack on their judgments. Accordingly, claims which could have been raised in previous appeals but were not are generally waived; and claims raised on direct appeal are res judicata. Thomas v. State, 888 P.2d 522, 525 (Okl.Cr.1994), cert. denied, 516 U.S. 840 , 116 S.Ct. 123 , 133 L.Ed.2d 73 (1995); Castro v. State, 814 P.2d 158, 159 (Okl.Cr.1991), cert. denied, 502 U.S. 1063 , 112 S.Ct. 947 , 117 L.Ed.2d 116 (1992).”

   6 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Hain v. State · Slaughter v. State

2. “[w]ere not and could not have been raised”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Grant v. Royal · Hain v. State

3. “[s]upport a conclusion either that the outcome of the trial would have been different but for the errors or that the defendant is factually innocent.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Hain v. State · Slaughter v. State