157 So. 3d 13 - State v. Ray’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. “La. Const, art. I, § 20 guarantees that, “[n]o law shall subject any person to cruel or-unusual punishment.” To constitute an excessive sentence, the reviewing court must find the penalty so grossly disproportionate to the severity of the crime as to shock our sense of justice or that the sentence makes no measurable contribution |6to acceptable penal goals and is, therefore, nothing more than a needless imposition of pain and suffering. State v. Campbell, 404 So.2d 1205 (La.1981). The trial court has wide discretion in the imposition of sentence within the statutory limits and such sentence' shall not be set aside as excessive absent a manifest abuse of discretion. State v. Etienne, 99-192 (La.App. 3 Cir. 10/13/99) ; 746 So.2d 124 , writ denied, 00-0165 (La.6/30/00); 765 So.2d 1067 . The relevant question is whether the trial court abused its broad sentencing discretion, not whether another sentence might have been more appropriate. State v. Cook, 95-2784 (La.5/31/96); 674 So.2d 957 , cert. denied, 519 U.S. 1043 , 117 S.Ct. 615 , 136 L.Ed.2d 539 (1996).”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 189 So. 3d 605 - State v. Fallon

2. “In deciding whether a sentence shocks our sense of justice or makes no" measurable contribution to acceptable penal goals, the appellate court may consider several factors,- including the nature of the offense, the circumstances of the offender, the legislative purpose behind the punishment and a comparison of the sentences imposed for similar crimes. State v. Smith, 99-606 (La.7/6/00), 766 So.2d 501 . However, sentences must be individualized to the offender and the offense committed. State v. Smith, 02-719 (La.App., 3 Cir. 2/12/03), 846 So.2d 786 (quoting State v. Batiste, 594 So,2d 1 (La.App. 1 Cir.1991), writ denied, 03-562 (La.5/30/03), 845 So.2d 1061 ).”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 189 So. 3d 605 - State v. Fallon

3. “Where the defendant’s right to a jury trial was waived by his attorney, and there was no other indication that the defendant knowingly and intelligently waived that right, such as a confirmation in open court, the appellate courts have remanded the matter to the trial court for a determination of whether the defendant’s waiver was knowing and intelligent. State v. Zeringue, 03-697 (La.App. 5 Cir. 11/25/03) , 862 So.2d 186 , writ denied, 03-3523 (La.4/23/04), 870 So.2d 298 ; State v. Morris, 607 So.2d 1000 (La.App. 3 Cir.1992), rev’d on other grounds, 615 So.2d 327 (La.1993). See also State v. Pierre, 02-2665 (La.3/28/03), 842 So.2d 321 .”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 165 So. 3d 1237 - State v. Cooley