Surrells v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

4 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 4 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “the probation revocation rules announced in Chrisman, Luepke, and Witt are not formal requirements of Alaska's [pre-2005] sentencing statutes. Rather, these rules are guidelines-guidelines designed to avoid unjustified sentencing disparity in cases not governed by the presumptive sentencing statutes. And because the rules announced in Chris-man, Luepke, and Witt are guidelines, the Blakely right to jury trial does not apply to them.”

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

2. “this Court has never held that, at probation revocation proceedings, the sentencing court had to find aggravating factors or extraordinary cireumstances by 'clear and convincing evidence' as opposed to the 'preponderance of the evidence' standard that normally applies at probation revocation hearings.”

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

3. “simply does not apply when [the legislature] has provided a court with the power to modify a sentence in light of changed circumstances”

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