Clark v. State’s Empirical Analysis
2014
Citation profile
5 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on 445 So. 2d 873 - Jones v. Casey · 401 So. 2d 123 - Bracewell v. State · 571 So. 2d 1287 - Davis v. State · 941 So. 2d 1000 - Minnifield v. State · 399 So. 2d 932 - Jefferson v. City of Birmingham
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 6 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““The Alabama Sentencing Reform Act of 2003 (‘the Act’), as amended effective October 1, 2006, created voluntary sentencing standards to, among other things, assist trial judges in determining the most appropriate sentence for convicted felony offenders. See § 12-25-31(a)(1), Ala.Code 1975. At the time the Act was passed, a trial judge had the discretion to sentence a defendant either pursuant to the voluntary sentencing standards or pursuant to the [Habitual Felony Offender Act]. See State v. Crittenden, 17 So.3d 253, 259 (Ala.Crim.App.2009). “In 2012, the legislature enacted § 12-25-34.2, Ala.Code 1975, effective May 15, 2012, to implement presumptive sentencing standards in place of the voluntary sentencing standards. See Act No. 2012-473, Ala. Acts 2012. Section 12-25-34.2(b), Ala.Code 1975, provides: “ ‘The voluntary sentencing standards as provided for in Section 12-25-34, as applied to nonviolent offenses shall become presumptive sentencing standards effective October 1, 2013, to the extent the modification adopted by the Alabama Sentencing Commission become effective October 1, 2013. The standards shall be applied by the courts in sentencing subject to departures as provided herein. To accomplish this purpose as to the existing initial voluntary sentencing standards, the Alabama Sentencing Commission shall adopt modifications to the standards, worksheets, and instructions to the extent necessary to implement this provision including, but not limited to, defining aggrav”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Hyde v. State · Oliver v. State““[d]urational and dispositional departures from the presumptive sentencing standards shall be subject , to appellate review. Along with the modifications provided for in subsection (b), the Alabama Sentencing Commission shall recommend a narrowly defined scope of appellate review applicable to departures' from presumptive sentencing recommendations. The scope of appellate review shall become effective upon approval by an act of the Legislature enacted by bill.””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Oliver v. State · Oliver v. State
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.