185 Md. App. 580 - Webb 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. “[W]hen considering whether the theft of multiple items of property, at the same time or at different times, from the same owner or from ■ different owners, constitutes one offense or separate offenses (and with that, whether the value of the different items can be aggregated or not aggregated), the ultimate criterion is whether the separate takings were part of a single scheme or continuing course of conduct. If so, one offense must be charged and the values may be aggregated to determine whether the offense is a felony. To the extent that is not the case, the takings constitute separate offenses and aggregation of values is permissible only with respect to the takings included in each of the respective separate offenses. ... [T]he determination of whether multiple takings were part of a single scheme or course of conduct, for any purpose other than resolving the sufficiency of the charging document, is a factual matter that must be based on evidence. We observed there that the single larceny doctrine “rests on the notion that the separate takings are all part of a single larcenous scheme and a continuous larcenous act, and, when the evidence suffices to establish that fact, directly or by inference, most courts have had no problem applying the doctrine.” The question, then, is whether the State has sufficiently established beyond a reasonable doubt that there was, or, in this case, was not, a single larcenous scheme or course of conduct.”

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

2. “On numerous occasions this Court has pointed out that “illegal sentences may be challenged at any time, even on appeal[.'J” ... See, e.g., Jordan v. State, 323 Md. 151, 161 , 591 A.2d 875, 880 (1991) (even though the defendant did not raise the issue at trial, “Jordan has not waived his right to object to the unlawful sentence”); Osborne v. State, 304 Md. 323 , 326 n. 1, 499 A.2d 170 , 171 n. 1 (1985) (“where the trial court has allegedly imposed an illegal sentence, the issue may be reviewed on direct appeal even if no objection was made in the trial court”)[.]”

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