State v. Peel’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

8 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 8 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““Under the Arizona Rules of Criminal Procedure, it was permissible for the county attorney to file an information against defendant which was unspecified as to the degree of the crime charged. It was also proper for the court to accept defendant’s plea of guilty to that information. The question therefore becomes one of determining whether or not the trial court followed the proper procedure in determining the degree of burglary under which defendant was to be sentenced. # ifc sjí sfc ífc s$c “In the instant case the court, after reciting the conviction of defendant’s brother, Robert, stated that the ‘plea of this Defendant, James Otis Peel, to the same information causes the Court to make a finding that the charge of bur glary undesignated is burglary first degree.’ We hold this is not in compliance with Rules 185 and 186. * * * ” 99 Ariz. at 177, 178, 179, 407 P.2d at 758 .”

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

2. ““Rule 185. Plea of guilty of offense divided into degrees “When an indictment or information charges an offense which is divided into degrees, without specifying the degree, and the defendant pleads guilty without specifying the degree, the court shall determine the degree as provided in Rule 186.” (Emphasis added) Rule 185, Rules of Criminal Procedure, 17 A.R.S. “Rule 186. Plea of guilty of offense divided into degrees; determination of degree “If the defendant pleads guilty as provided in Rule 185, the court shall, before accepting the plea, examine defendant and witnesses, if necessary, to determine the degree of the offense of which the defendant is guilty and render judgment and sentence accordingly.” (Emphasis added) Rule 186, Rules of Criminal Procedure, 17 A.R.S.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
   e.g. State v. Lewis

3. ““So, it is recognized that in some instances it would not be necessary to examine defendant or witnesses. This of course could be done by questioning of defendant or by agreement of defendant and his counsel at the time of his plea or at the time of the sentence.” State v. Peel, 99 Ariz. 174, 178 , 407 P.2d 756, 758-759 (1965).”

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