Rash v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

5 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 5 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “"Rule 32, Ala. R.Crim. P., requires the circuit court judge to conduct an evidentiary hearing on a Rule 32 petition that appears meritorious on its face. However, the Alabama Supreme Court has held that a circuit court judge who presided over a petitioner's trial and who observed the conduct of the petitioner's attorneys at trial need not hold a hearing on a petition challenging the effectiveness of those attorneys. Ex parte Hill , 591 So.2d 462 , 463 (Ala. 1991). The fact that a circuit court judge is not required to conduct an evidentiary hearing on a petitioner's claims of ineffective assistance of trial counsel if that judge personally observed the conduct of counsel does not, however, relieve that judge of the responsibility of entering a sufficiently specific order addressing each of the petitioner's claims of ineffective assistance of trial counsel. See Alvis v. State , 762 So.2d 380 , 381 (Ala.Crim.App. 1999); Benefield v. State , 583 So.2d 1370 , 1370 (Ala.Crim.App. 1991) (noting in both cases that meritorious allegations `warrant either an evidentiary hearing or an adequate explanation of their denial')."”

   4 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Ex Parte Coleman · C.G.W. v. State

2. “"`[I]f the court finds that a particular allegation fails to meet the requirements of specificity of Rule 32.6(b), we encourage the court to so note with particularity in its written findings. It is to do likewise if it finds that a particular allegation fails to state a claim or to present any material issue of fact or law that would entitle [the petitioner] to relief. In other words, the court's written findings are to address individually each claim not precluded by Rule 32.2.' " Harper v. State, 676 So.2d 949, 950 (Ala.Crim.App.1995), aff'd, 698 So.2d 796 (Ala.Crim.App.1996) (table). In making these factual determinations, the circuit court may take judicial notice of the record in [C.G.W.'s 2006] trial. If the court's findings are based on its personal knowledge of [C.G.W.'s] trial, then the order should so state. See Sheats v. State, 556 So.2d 1094, 1095 (Ala.Crim. App.1989). As we have stated, `[a] statement of the basis of the [circuit] court's decision is essential to afford the appellant due process.' Owens v. State, 666 So.2d 31, 32 (Ala.Crim.App.1994)."”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. C.G.W. v. State · 6 So. 3d 567 - CGW v. State

3. “make specific findings of fact relating to each material issue of fact presented.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Lucious v. State · 6 So. 3d 567 - CGW v. State