187 N.C. App. 185 - State v. Wissink’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

4 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 4 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “[T]he “statutory maximum” for Apprendi purposes is the maximum sentence a judge may impose solely on the basis of the facts reflected in the jury verdict or admitted by the defendant. ... In other words, the relevant “statutory maximum” is not the maximum sentence a judge may impose after finding additional facts, but the maximum [the judge] may impose without any additional findings.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 216 N.C. App. 507 - State v. Cannon · 221 N.C. App. 211 - State v. Miles

2. “In Hurt , our Supreme Court held that “a judge may not find an aggravating factor on the basis of a defendant’s admission unless that defendant personally or through counsel admits the necessary facts or admits that the aggravating factor is applicable.” Hurt, 361 N.C. at 330 , 643 S.E.2d at 918 . This holding seems to suggest that when defense counsel admits the facts necessary for an aggravating factor, such a finding by a trial court does not constitute Blakely error. In Blackwell , our Supreme Court held that in accordance with Washington v. Recuenco, 548 U.S. 212 , 165 L.Ed. 2d 466 (2006), Blakely error is subject to harmless error review. Blackwell, 361 N.C. at 44 , 638 S.E.2d at 455 . “In conducting harmless error review, we must determine from the record whether the evidence against the defendant was so ‘overwhelming’ and ‘uncontroverted’ that any rational fact-finder would have found the disputéd aggravating factor beyond a reasonable doubt.” Id. at 49 , 638 S.E.2d at 458 (citing Neder v. United States, 527 U.S. 1, 9 , 144 L.Ed. 2d 35, 47 (1999)). Our Supreme Court further held that “[a] defendant may not avoid a conclusion that evidence of an aggravating factor is ‘uncontroverted’ by merely raising an objection at trial. Instead, the defendant must ‘bring forth facts contesting the omit ted element,’ and must have ‘raised evidence sufficient to support a contrary finding.’ ” Id. at 50 , 638 S.E.2d at 458 (quoting Neder, 527 U.S. at 19 , 144 L.Ed. 2d at 53 ).”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 216 N.C. App. 507 - State v. Cannon