State v. Oseguera Acevedo’s Empirical Analysis
1999
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 30 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 32 later decisions — most recently January 2014 · most notably Lambert v. Blodgett (2004), In Re Isadore (2004)
2 federal appellate · 30 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 Strickland v. Washington · Terry v. Ohio · Hill v. Lockhart · Porzig v. Nolden · 127 Wash. 2d 322 - State v. McFarland
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 32 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[T]he apparent significance attributed by this court to the defendant’s assertion that he would not have entered the plea if he had known of the community placement requirement suggests in that case the term of community placement was a “material” factor in the defendant’s decision to enter a plea of guilty. In this case, unlike the situation in Ross , there is no indication the term of community placement was “material” or relevant to the decision by Respondent Oseguera to plead guilty.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“The plea to which Defendant agreed was not the plea the State now seeks to enforce. Defendant signed a plea agreement believing the State was recommending a total sentence of 89 months, not 101 months. More significantly, mandatory community placement enhanced Defendant’s minimum sentence and altered the standard of punishment applicable. Although Defendant knew the State’s recommendation did not bind the trial court, he claims he would not have agreed to such a plea.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent“The defendant must identify a constitutional error and show how, in the context of the trial, the alleged error actually affected the defendant’s rights; it is this showing of actual prejudice that makes the error “manifest,” allowing appellate review. If the facts necessary to adjudicate the claimed error are not in the record on appeal, no actual prejudice is shown and the error is not manifest.”
1 later decision 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.