955 So. 2d 473 - Conner v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

1 federal appellate · 7 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 10 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “"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”

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

2. ““Robbery in the third degree. “(a) A person commits the crime of robbery in the third degree if in the course of committing a theft he: “(1) Uses force against the person of the owner or any person present with intent to overcome his physical resistance or physical power of resistance; or “(2) Threatens 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.””

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

3. “Although a Rule 32 petitioner is not required to include attachments to his or her petition in order to satisfy the pleading requirements in Rule 32.3 and Rule 32.6(b), when a petitioner does so, those attachments are considered part of the pleadings.” Conner v. State, 955 So.2d 473, 476 (Ala.Crim.App.2006). See also Ex parte Lucas, 865 So.2d 418 (Ala.2002) (noting that attachments to a Rule 32 petition are considered part of the pleadings). .”

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