140 Cal. App. 4th 837 - People v. MISA’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

16 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 16 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “the statutory language in section 667, subdivision (e) that the Williams court relied on in part to determine that the prior conviction enhancement must be applied to multiple strike offenses in third strike cases also applies to second strike sentences and thus supports the conclusion that a logical application of the Williams analysis in this context would require the imposition of the prior conviction enhancement on [the defendant's] second strike offense (the torture count) notwithstanding that the enhancement was also imposed as a status enhancement relating to the determinate term on the assault count.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. People v. Minifie

2. “[a]lthough [the defendant] was a second strike defendant rather than a third striker, he is nonetheless a recidivist and . . . is thus subject to a prior conviction enhancement under [Penal Code] section 667, subdivision (a) [on the torture count] even though he also received a similar enhancement relating to the assault count.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 150 Cal. App. 4th 1040 - People v. Sayres

3. “To satisfy constitutional mandates, a statute must: (1) be sufficiently definite to provide adequate notice of the conduct that is proscribed; and (2) provide sufficiently definite guidelines for the police so as to prevent arbitrary or discriminatory enforcement.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 180 Cal. App. 4th 254 - People v. Saleem