104 Md. App. 461 - Thomas v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

10 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. “There can be little doubt here as to the legislative intent. The General Assembly in 1988 repealed a statute that provided a mandatory 10-year minimum sentence upon a finding of any previous conviction in favor of a more structured approach of increasing mandatory sentences for a second, third, and fourth conviction. It was presumably aware of our holding in Calhoun that, where a statute prescribes an enhanced penalty for a “third” conviction, as opposed to a “second or subsequent” conviction, it allows that penalty only upon the one conviction that constitutes the third, and not upon any conviction beyond the second. The Legislature had a variety of language to choose from, in existing enhanced punishment statutes, and it chose specificity over generality. In 1991, when it amended § 286(c)(1) to include certain foreign convictions, it left unchanged the specific language “as a second offender” in the provision mandating a non-suspendable, essentially non-parolable sentence for persons previously convicted.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 130 Md. App. 135 - Veney v. State · 175 Md. App. 153 - Taylor v. State

2. “In construing Maryland enhanced penalty statutes similar to § 286(c), we have found that such statutes were enacted •with the purpose of identifying defendants who have not reformed their behavior after prior convictions and incarcerating such defendants for a longer period than would otherwise be applicable in order to protect the community and deter others from similar behavior. The means for achiev ing such deterrence is the provision of fair warning to previous offenders that if they continue to commit criminal acts after having had the opportunity to reform after one or more prior contacts with the criminal justice system, they will be imprisoned for a considerably longer period of time than they were subject to as first offenders.... [We] find that the Legislature had the same intent in enacting § 286(c). An enhanced penalty statute will best deter future criminal conduct when the defendant is made aware that the subsequent commission of criminal acts will be more harshly punished. Where, as here, the defendant has not been convicted of an earlier offense, and thereby warned about the enhanced consequences of future criminal conduct, prior to the commission of the principal offense, the imposition of an enhanced penalty is not warranted.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 175 Md. App. 153 - Taylor v. State

3. “(c) Sentencing. — (1) A person who is convicted under subsection (b)(l)[ 2 ] or subsection (b)(2)[3] of this section, or of conspiracy to violate subsection (b)(1) or (b)(2) of this section shall be sentenced to imprisonment for not less than 10 years and subject to a fine not exceeding $100,000 if the person previously has been convicted: (i) Under subsection (b)(1) or subsection (b)(2) of this section; (ii) Of conspiracy to violate subsection (b)(1) or subsection (b)(2) of this section; or (iii) Of an offense under the laws of another state, the District of Columbia, or the United States that would be a violation of subsection(b)(l) or subsection (b)(2) of this section if committed in this State. (2) The prison sentence of a person sentenced under subsection (b)(1) or subsection (b)(2) of this section, or of conspiracy to violate subsection (b)(1) or subsection (b)(2) of this section or any combination of these offenses, as a second offender may not be suspended to less than 10 years, and the person may be paroled during that period only in accordance with § 4-305 of the Correctional Services Article.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 130 Md. App. 135 - Veney v. State