Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 175 N.C. App. 576 - State v. Hyden

175 N.C. App. 576 - State v. Hyden’s Empirical Analysis

2006

Citation profile

5
cited by 5 later decisions
2
states following
November 2020
most recently cited

5 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 5 later decisions — most recently November 2020

5 state decisions

20200620102020decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

Relationships

Relies on Blakely v. Washington · State v. Allen · 139 N.C. App. 209 - State v. Smith · State v. Vardiman · 146 N.C. App. 381 - State v. Vardiman

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

  1. “Prior convictions of driving while impaired are the elements of the offense of habitual impaired driving, but the statute `does not impose punishment for [these] previous crimes, [it] imposes an enhanced punishment' for the latest offense. " 146 N.C. App. at 385 , 552 S.E.2d at 700 (emphasis added) (quoting State v. Smith, 139 N.C. App. 209, 214 , 533 S.E.2d 518, 521 , appeal dismissed, 353 N.C. 277 , 546 S.E.2d 391 (2000)), appeal dismissed, 355 N.C. 222 , 559 S.E.2d 794 , cert. denied, 537 U.S. 833 , 154 L. Ed. 2d 51 , 123 S. Ct. 142 (2002). This Court ultimately held "that the habitual impaired driving statute does not punish prior convictions a second time, but rather punishes the most recent conviction more severely because of the prior convictions. " Id. at 386, 552 S.E.2d at 701 (emphasis added). Thus, the amendment to N.C. Gen. Stat. § 20-138.5 (a) did not cause defendant, in this case, to be punished more severely for his 1999 DWI conviction. Rather, it punished his current 2007 DWI offense more severely because the General Assembly has chosen to consider the new DWI "a more serious violation in light of his recidivist record.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. “that the habitual impaired driving statute does not punish prior convictions a second time, but rather punishes the most recent conviction more severely because of the prior convictions.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. “a more serious violation in light of his recidivist record.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage

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.