140 Md. App. 48 - Ridgeway v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

7 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 7 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “All right, sentence is as follows: As to count one, Mr. Kinney—I'm satisfied that Mr. Kinney was in the drug business. He associated with drug people and, uh, that's how Mr. Ridgeway knew him and knew about his trailer. But even Mr. Kinney, even Mr. Kinney is entitled to be protected from being shot down in the middle of the night. So as to count one, the sentence is five years in the Department of Corrections. Now we get to all the innocent people. Count five, as to Beth Ann Hanning, the sentence is ten years, that sentence to run consecutive to the count one. As to nine, as to count nine, that's as to little Erica Kirkbirde, the sentence is ten years in the Department of Corrections, that sentence to run consecutive to count five. Sentence is as to count thirteen, count thirteen is little Erica Tyler-Thornburg, the sentence is ten years to run consecutively to the sentence imposed in count nine. As to count seventeen, that's little ... Danielle Tyler-Thornburg... the sentence is ten years in the Department of Corrections, that sentence to run consecutive to the sentence imposed in count thirteen. And as to count twenty-two, the malicious destruction of property, the Court will suspend the imposition of sentence generally. The Court regards the other counts as to second degree and reckless endangerment as merged. Total of forty-five years to be served in the Department of Corrections. After the sentence was imposed, the petitioner was advised of his post-trial rights and the”

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

2. “[T]he Supreme Court has cautioned against permitting those convicted of a crime from using the Double Jeopardy Clause to avoid sentencing or, in other words, turning sentencing into “a game in which a wrong move by the judge means immunity for the prisoner.” Bozza v. United States, 330 U.S. 160, 166-67 [ 67 S.Ct. 645 , 91 L.Ed. 818 ] (1947). In Bozza , the issue before the Court was whether the “fact that the petitioner has been twice before the judge for sentencing and in a federal place of detention during the five-hour interim” constituted double jeopardy. Id. at 166 [ 67 S.Ct. 645 ], Holding that it did not, the Supreme Court reaffirmed its rejection of the “‘doctrine that a prisoner, whose guilt is established, by a regular verdict, is to escape punishment altogether, because the court committed an error in passing sentence.’ ” Id. at 166 [ 67 S.Ct. 645 ] (quoting In re Bonner, 151 U.S. 242, 260 [ 14 S.Ct. 323 , 38 L.Ed. 149 ] (1894)). We agree.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 193 Md. App. 469 - Parker v. State

3. “(a) Illegal sentence. The court may correct an illegal sentence at any time. (b) Modification or reduction—Time for. The court has revisory power and control over a sentence upon a motion filed within 90 days after its imposition (1) in the District Court, if an appeal has not been perfected, and (2) in a circuit court, whether or not an appeal has been filed. Thereafter, the court has revisory power and control over the sentence in case of fraud, mistake, or irregularity, or as provided in section (e) of this Rule. The court may not increase a sentence after the sentence has been imposed, except that it may correct an evident mistake in the announcement of a sentence if the correction is made on the record before the defendant leaves the courtroom following the sentencing proceeding.”

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