Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 981 S.W.2d 315 - Gorham v. State

Gorham v. State’s Empirical Analysis

1999

Citation profile

5
cited by 5 later decisions
2
states following
April 2017
most recently cited

5 state decisions

Appellate journey

reviewedthe decision below (from Texas 230th Judicial District Court)

Relationships

Relies on King v. State · Cain v. State · United States v. Campbell · Breazeale v. State · Flowers v. State

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. “Neither the appellant nor the State have any formal burden to show harm or harmlessness under Rule 44.2(b). [N]either the State nor appellant must demonstrate harm when [a non-constitutional] error has occurred. Rather, it is the appellate court’s duty to assess harm after a proper review of the record. Accordingly, a conviction must be reversed on direct appeal if the record shows that a defendant was unaware of the consequences of his plea and that he was misled or harmed by the trial court’s failure to admonish him regarding the range of punishment. Thus, a reviewing court must independently examine the record for indications that a defendant was or was not aware of the consequences of his plea and whether he was misled or harmed by the trial court’s failure to admonish him of the punishment range.”
    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.