169 Conn. App. 127 - State v. Robles’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

18 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 18 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “Connecticut courts have considered four categories of claims pursuant to [Practice Book] § 43-22. The first category has addressed whether the sentence was within the permissible range for the crimes charged.... The second category has considered violations of the prohibition against double jeopardy.... The third category has involved claims pertaining to the computation of the length of the sentence and the question of consecutive or concurrent prison time.... The fourth category has involved questions as to which sentencing statute was applicable.... [I]f a defendant's claim falls within one of these four categories the trial court has jurisdiction to modify a sentence after it has commenced.... If the claim is not within one of the categories, then the court must dismiss the claim for a lack of jurisdiction and not consider its merits.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 184 Conn. App. 576 - State v. Lugojanu · 179 Conn. App. 185 - State v. Gang Jin

2. “Under North Carolina v. Alford , 400 U.S. 25 , 91 S.Ct. 160 , 27 L.Ed.2d 162 (1970), a criminal defendant is not required to admit his guilt ... but consents to being punished as if he were guilty to avoid the risk of proceeding to trial.... A guilty plea under the Alford doctrine is a judicial oxymoron in that the defendant does not admit guilt but acknowledges that the state's evidence against him is so strong that he is prepared to accept the entry of a guilty plea nevertheless.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 169 Conn. App. 751 - Robles v. Commissioner of Correction · 179 Conn. App. 185 - State v. Gang Jin

3. “The judicial authority may at any time correct an illegal sentence or other illegal disposition, or it may correct a sentence imposed in an illegal manner or any other disposition made in an illegal manner.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 184 Conn. App. 576 - State v. Lugojanu · 179 Conn. App. 185 - State v. Gang Jin