156 So. 3d 75 - State v. Cole’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

1 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 1 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “In State v. Johnson, 97-1906, pp. 6-9 (La. 3/4/98), 709 So.2d 672, 676-77 , the Louisiana Supreme Court discussed downward departures as follows: In State v. Dorthey, [ 623 So.2d 1276 (La.1993),] this Court held that a trial court must reduce a defendant’s sentence to one not constitutionally excessive if the trial court finds that the sentence mandated by the Habitual Offender Law “makes no measurable contribution to acceptable goals of punishment”, or is nothing more than “the purposeful imposition of pain and suffering” and is “grossly out of proportion to the severity of the crime.” Id. at 1280-81 . Finding a mandatory minimum sentence constitutionally excessive requires much more, though, than the mere utterance of the phrases above. A sentencing judge must always start with the presumption that a mandatory minimum sentence under the Habitual Offender Law is constitutional. See State v. Dorthey, supra at 1281 (Marcus, J., concurring); State v. Young, [ 94-1636 (La.App. 4 Cir. 10/26/95) , 663 So.2d 525 ]. A court may only depart from the minimum sentence if it finds that there is clear and convincing evidence in the particular case before it which would rebut this presumption of constitutionality. A trial judge may not rely solely upon the non-violent nature of the in stant crime or of past crimes as evidence which justifies rebutting the presumption of constitutionality. While the classification of a defendant’s instant or prior offenses as nonviolent should not be disco”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 207 So. 3d 436 - State v. Farry