People v. Marlott’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

13 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 13 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““This court has previously held that a defendant whose conviction has not become final is entitled under section 18-1-410(l)(f), C.R.S. 1973 to the benefits of amendatory legislation mitigating the penalty for the same crime, [citations omitted] In such a case, the change in legal standards of punishment can be readily perceived for purposes of modifying the earlier sentence. “However, where, as here, the new Criminal Code changes the elements of the crimes, [footnote omitted] there can be no measure by which to determine whether the standards of punishment have increased or decreased because the crimes are no longer the same. It was clearly not the legislative intent behind section 18-l-410(l)(f), C.R.S. 1973 to permit the modification of sentences where the earlier crimes have been subsequently repealed and substantially new crimes have been enacted in their place. Were it otherwise, this court could only speculate as to the new crimes which defendant may have been charged with and convicted of in order to determine if his sentence should be reduced.” (Emphasis in original.) 552 P.2d at 494 .”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. People v. Lake