175 Wis. 2d 231 - State v. Chapman’s Empirical Analysis
1993
Citation profile
10
cited by 10 later decisions
1
states following
July 2002
most recently cited
10 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on Licht v. Texas Commerce Bank · 64 Wis. 2d 6 - Omernik v. State · 167 Wis. 2d 749 - State v. Borrell · 75 Wis. 2d 244 - Klimas v. State · 168 Wis. 2d 175 - State v. Jenkins
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 10 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Relying upon Klimas v. State, 75 Wis. 2d 244, 248-50 , 249 N.W.2d 285, 287-88 (1977), and State v. Walker, 117 Wis. 2d 579, 586 , 345 N.W.2d 413, 416 (1984), Chapman argues that as an indigent defendant he has a constitutional right to have his presentence confinement credited against his parole eligibility date. Chapman's argument would have merit if the option of sec. 973.014(2), Stats., permitting the trial court to set a parole eligibility date without consideration of presentence confinement credit treated indigent and nonindigent defendants differently. The statute's classification is based on the nature of the crime and the characteristics of the defendant and not on financial considerations. In denying consideration of credit for presentence confinement to a class of convicted defendants the legislature has not denied them a right to such credit.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“A defendant sentenced under sec. 973.014(1), Stats., is eligible for parole according to a formula the legislature sets forth in sec. 304.06, Stats. This formula is used to calculate the discretionary parole eligibility date and takes into consideration any presentence confinement credit. On the other hand, a defendant sentenced under sec. 973.014(2) 5 has his or her parole eligibility date established by the sentencing court and not by the formula in sec. 304.06.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“(b) The person is eligible for parole on a date set by the court. Under this paragraph, the court may set any later date than that provided in s. 304.06(1), but may not set a date that occurs before the earliest possible parole eligibility date as calculated under s. 304.06(1).”
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.