171 So. 3d 272 - State v. Graham’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

27 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 27 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “'The Louisiana legislature promptly addressed the Miller directive against mandatory life-without-parole sentences for juvenile killers by devising a sentencing procedure which would require that a trial court sentencing a youthful offender review all pertinent factors before determining whether parole eligibility was warranted. By its very application to only murderers under the age of 18, the provisions of La. C. Cr. P. art. 878.1 mandating a sentencing hearing at which the defense will be given an opportunity to present mitigating factors-which obviously include the defendant's age as an important part of his social history-satisfy Miller's requirement that mitigating factors favoring a juvenile killer be heard in a proceeding held for that purpose... ... [L]ife without parole is still a constitutionally acceptable sentence for adult killers and it is not a prohibited sentence for all juvenile killers. Our legislature carefully designed an adequate solution by adding a new statute pertaining to parole eligibility for juvenile killers which is to be read in conjunction with the first and second degree murder statutes. In the event that the trial court imposes a life sentence with parole eligibility, La. R.S. 15:574.4(E) provides conditions which must be satisfied before the defendant can apply to the parole board for parole consideration.' Either sentencing scheme of life imprisonment with parole, or life imprisonment without parole, is proper and not unconstitutional under”

   5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. State v. Olivier · 258 So. 3d 973 - State v. Smith

2. “... any consideration of La. C.Cr.P. art. 878.1 and La. R.S. 15:574.4(E) in resen-tencing the defendant, would not have been, contrary to the defendant’s assertion, an ex post facto violation. In State v. Jones, 12-788 (La.App. 5 Cir. 5/23/13) , 165 So.3d 74 (unpublished), writ granted, 13-2039 (La.2/28/14), 134 So,3d 1164, a decision handed down after Miller but prior to State v. Tate, 12-2763 (La,ll/5/13), 130 So.3d 829, 841-44 , cert. denied, — U.S. -, 134 S.Ct. 2663 , 189 L.Ed.2d 214 (2014) (applying La. C.Cr.P. art. 878.1 and La. R.S. 15:574.4(E)(1) prospectively only), the defendant (seventeen years old at the time of the offense) was convicted of second degree murder and sentenced to life imprisonment at hard labor without benefit of probation, parole, or suspension of sentence. The defendant committed the crime on April 29, 2010, before either Miller or Tate were handed down. The fifth circuit affirmed the conviction, but vacated .that portion of the defendant’s sentence 'that prohibited parole eligibility and remanded the matter for resentencing in conformity with Miller . In State v. Jones, in a writ of certiorari grant[ed] for the above unpublished decision, our supreme court stated: Defendant is entitled to the benefit of the decision in Miller v. Alabama, 567 U.S. -, 132 S.Ct. 2455 , 183 L.Ed.2d 407 (2012), because his case was in the direct review pipeline when Miller was decided. See Griffith v. Kentucky, 479 U.S. 314 , 107 S.Ct. 708 , 93 L.Ed.2d 649 (1987) (ne”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. State v. Preston · 249 So. 3d 260 - State v. Alridge

3. “A. In any case where an offender is to be sentenced to life imprisonment for a conviction of first degree murder (R.S. 14:30 ) or second degree murder (R.S. 14:30.1 ) where the offender was under the age of eighteen years at the time of the commission of the offense, a hearing shall be conducted prior to sentencing to determine whether the sentence shall be imposed with or without parole eligibility pursuant to the provisions of R.S. 15:574.4(E). B. At the hearing, the prosecution and defense shall be allowed to introduce any aggravating and mitigating evidence that is relevant to the charged offense or the character of the offender, including but not limited to the facts and circumstances of the crime, the criminal history of the offender, the offender's level of family support, social history, and such other factors as the court may deem relevant. Sentences imposed without parole eligibility should normally be reserved for the worst offenders and the worst cases.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 243 So. 3d 1253 - State v. Bradley