State v. Sieler’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

1 district · 28 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 29 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “In the determination of an inmate's eligibility for consideration for parole, two or more convictions arising from the same transaction, for which the sentences are made to run consecutively, shall be considered as one conviction. Two or more sentences arising from different transactions for which the sentences are made to run consecutively shall be considered as separate convictions. In determining the eligibility date for a person receiving two or more sentences which are made to run consecutively, the sentences shall be added together and the total number of convictions shall then determine the total amount of time to be served before becoming eligible for consideration for parole subject to the provisions of § 24-15-5.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Puthoff · Dale v. Young

2. “[t]he same transaction test is valid only when transaction means a single act.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Roedder · State v. Vatne

3. “Parole is the discretionary conditional release of an inmate from actual penitentiary custody before the expiration of his term of imprisonment. The prisoner remains an inmate under the legal custody of the department of corrections until the expiration of his term of imprisonment. A prisoner is not required to accept a conditional parole. A prisoner is never entitled to parole. However, parole may be granted if in the judgment of the board of pardons and paroles granting a parole would be in the best interests of society and the prisoner. Neither this section or its application may be the basis for establishing a constitutionally protected liberty, property or due process interest in any prisoner. (Emphasis added.) The United States Supreme Court has specifically held that a convicted person has no constitutional right to parole. Greenholtz v. Nebraska Penal Inmates, 442 U.S. 1, 7 , 99 S.Ct. 2100, 2104 , 60 L.Ed.2d 668, 675 (1979); see also Winters v. Solem, 444 N.W.2d 722, 724 (S.D.1989). Sieler's sentence was not increased by the words "separate transaction," only his parole eligibility is affected by these words.”

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