169 Md. App. 303 - Fuller v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

6 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 6 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “(a) Applicability.—This section applies only to a defendant for whom: (1) No sentence of incarceration is currently in effect; and (2) No detainer is currently lodged. (b) In general.—Subject to the limitations in this section, a court that finds in a criminal case that a defendant has an alcohol or drug dependency may commit the defendant as a condition of release, after conviction, or at any other time the defendant voluntarily agrees to participate in treatment, to the Department for treatment that the Department recommends, even if: (1) The defendant did not timely file a motion for reconsideration under Maryland Rule 4-345; or (2) The defendant timely filed a motion for reconsideration under Maryland Rule 4-345 which was denied by the court. (c) Prerequisites.—Before a court commits a defendant to the Department under this section, the court shall: (1) Offer the defendant the opportunity to receive treatment; (2) Obtain the written consent of the defendant: (1) To receive treatment; and (ii) To have information reported back to the court; (3) Order an evaluation of the defendant under § 8-505 or § 8-506 of this subtitle; (4) Consider the report on the defendant’s evaluation; and (5) Find that the treatment that the Department recommends to be appropriate and necessary. (d) Services.—(1) The Department shall provide the services required by this section. (2) A designee of the Department may carry out any of the Department’s duties under this section if appropriate funding”

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

2. “1. Does this Court have jurisdiction to review the circuit court’s denial of a petition for commitment pursuant to Health-General Article § 8-507? 2. Did the circuit court err by not articulating its reasons for denying the petition? 3. Assuming arguendo that the circuit court correctly interpreted and applied the law, did it abuse its discretion by denying the petition?”

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

3. “no sentence of incarceration is currently in effect....” See Fuller v. State, 169 Md.App. 303 , 309 n. 3, 900 A.2d 311 , 314 n. 3 (2006), aff'd, 397 Md. 372 , 918 A.2d 453 (2007) (”

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