156 Ind. App. 431 - Barbee v. State’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 Appellant [Barbee] here asserts that the modified sentence of 10 to 20 years for robbery is violative of the constitutional guarantees against cruel and unusual punishment and further contends that the only proper sentence for robbery is a 10 year determinate term. The basic rationale of the Appellant’s argument is that a sentence of 10 to 20 years, indeterminate, is greater than a sentence of 10 to 20 years, determinate, because there is a possibility that one serving under the determinate sentence could be released at an earlier date than one serving under the indeterminate sentence. Since robbery, which carries the indeterminate sentence, has been held a lesser included offense under armed robbery, which carries the determinate sentence, the Appellant believes the robbery sentence is disproportionate to the crime.””

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

2. ““The statute in question refers only to the penalty imposed upon the said felony. Thus, we are clearly concerned only with the duration of the sentence and not with the term of imprisonment that may be served thereunder, this being determined by subsequent events.” See, also, Barbee v. State (1973), 156 Ind. App. 431 , 296 N.E.2d 884 .”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 160 Ind. App. 346 - Caywood v. State