155 So. 3d 87 - State v. Richardson’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

3 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 3 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “In the case at bar, the State filed-the multiple bill of information almost two years after defendant’s conviction for armed robbery. During that time, the defendant was . not sentenced on- the original conviction. The defendant was found guilty of- armed robbery on September 1G,. 1996. The State eventually filed the multiple bill-of information on August 17,1998. A review of the record indicates that ■ defendant’s sentencing was continued three times on joint motion of- the State and the defendant. The last joint motion to continue was granted on June 29, 1998.’ The court reset the matter six other times. The record does not indicate which party sought to have the matter: reset on- these other occasions. ■ While almost two years elapsed between defendant’s .conviction and the filing'-of the multiple bill, the delay was not ■ prejudicial. The defendant - was convicted of armed robbery-apd was in- carcemted at the time the multiple bill was filed. Although the defendant had not been sentenced on the original conviction prior to the filing of the multiple bill, the minimum sentence under La. R.S. 14:64, would have been five years at hard labor without benefit of probation, parole or suspension of sentence. Thus, even if .defendant had been sentenced to the minimum sentence on the original conviction, he would still have \ n,been incarcerated at the time the State filed the multiple bill. In addition, the defendant had pending charges of possession of a firearm by a convicted fe”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
   e.g. 190 So. 3d 354 - State v. Ellis

2. “.... In Simmons, the defendant was charged by bill of information with attempted armed robbery on 11 December 2009, and found guilty of same on 6 -December 2010. At trial* he testified that he had been convicted of a felony, armed robbery, in ■ Mississippi on 26 February 1997. The defendant, was sixteen years of age at the time. .On 27 January 2011, the defendant , was sentenced to twenty-one months at hard labor with credit for time served. A few days later, the | ^Mississippi Department of Corrections mailed documentation regarding the defendant’s prior felony conviction to the Orleans Parish District Attorney’s Office. Id., pp. 1-4, 126 So.3d at 693-694 . Although the state did not file a habitual offender, bill, a multiple bill hearing was set for 30 March 2011, at which time ■the defendant did not appear in court, and the state requested that the hearing be held on 11 April 2011. Thereafter, the hearing was continued on numerous occasions throughout 2011 and 2012. .The state filed a multiple offender bill of information on 9 February 2012. , On July 15, 2012, the defendant was released from prison after completing the sentence for the underlying charge of attempted simple robbery. Nearly a month later, the state filed another habitual offender bill of information, and a multiple bill hearing was set for 16 October 2012. On that date, a status hearing was scheduled for 31 October 2012, at which time a motion to quash the bill of information was set for hearing on 28 Novem”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 190 So. 3d 354 - State v. Ellis

3. “The defendant also relied upon State v. Broussard, 416 So.2d 109, 111 (La.1982), wherein the1 Court held ‘that a thirteen-month delay iri’filing a habitual offender bill of information was unreasonable. The Simmons' Court noted that in Broussard , although the defendant’s prior convictions were obtained in the same parish during the district attorney’s tenure in office and information regarding same was available at the time of the original sentencing, the ' state, offering no reason for its delay, waited to file a habitual offender bill of information until the defendant served thirteen months of his original sentence and was awaiting parole. Simmons, p. 10, 126 So.3d at 699 . The defendant in Simmons, however, had completed his sentence and been released. Thus, the defendant argued that the facts were more egregious than those in Broussard , -and that notice' of the prior felony conviction alone did not remedy the prejudice he would suffer if the trial court’s ruling on-the motion-to quash was reversed, because pursuant to Muhammad, McQueen, and La.C,Cr. P. art. 874, a multiple bill must be filed within a reasonable time after the state becomes aware of a defendant’s prior felony conviction. Simmons, pp. 10-11, 126 So.3d at 699-700 .”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 190 So. 3d 354 - State v. Ellis