155 Ind. App. 499 - McVea v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

20 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 20 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““It is this qualitative difference in the sentences after “good-time” _ reduction which McVea assigns as the dispropor-tionality which violates the Indiana Constitution, Article 1, § 16. Parole from the lesser Robbery sentence is disproportional, he says, to discharge from the sentence for the greater crime of Armed Robbery. “As thus posed, the question is almost identical to the issue decided in Dotson v. State, (1972), 258 Ind. 581 , 282 N.E.2d 812 , in which the Supreme Court used a similar hypothetical in its analysis of the determinate-indeterminate dichotomy to conclude that speculative assumption of variances in good time release from imprisonment for determinate and indeterminate sentences, does not violate Article 1, § 16 of the Indiana Constitution. * * * “So, in a constitutional sense the measure in determining whether the penalty for one crime is greater than another is the maximum duration of the penalty, not the possible duration of imprisonment.””

   4 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Kennedy v. State · Davis v. State