107 So. 3d 841 - State v. Bethley’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

2 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 2 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “Concurrent sentences are preferred when offenses arise out of a common scheme or plan. A trial court is given the discretion, however, to impose consecutive sentences in such cases. Louisiana Code of Criminal Procedure Article 883 states that "[i]f the defendant is convicted of two or more offenses ... constituting parts of a common scheme or plan, the terms of imprisonment shall be served concurrently unless the court expressly directs that some or all be served consecutively." The imposition of consecutive sentences, however, requires particular justification beyond the standard sentencing guidelines, justification which must be articulated by the trial court at sentencing. State v. Compton, 11-68 (La.App. 3 Cir. 6/1/11) , 66 So.3d 619 , writ denied, 11-1362 (La. 12/2/11), 76 So.3d 1177 . "The factors to consider when imposing consecutive sentences include defendant's criminal record, the severity or violent nature of the offenses, or the danger the defendant poses to the public." State v. Wallace, 11-1258, p. 14 (La.App. 3 Cir. 5/30/12), 92 So.3d 592 , 602.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 210 So. 3d 340 - State v. Richardson · 256 So. 3d 345 - State v. Bench

2. “The factors to consider when imposing consecutive sentences include defendant's criminal record, the severity or violent nature of the offenses, or the danger the defendant poses to the public.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 256 So. 3d 345 - State v. Bench