2017 UT App 145 - State v. Alvarez’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 7 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “[W]e will not assume that the [sentencing] court's silence, by itself, presupposes that the court did not consider the proper factors as required by law.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Coombs · 2018 UT App 82 - State v. Norton

2. “assumed that [his] conduct merited a 15-years-to-life sentence and imposed sentence based on its assessment of whether [he] was entitled to 'mercy.' " He also contends that, under the circumstances of this case, his aggravated sexual assault convictions are comparatively less serious than other crimes, such as murder, which also carry presumptive prison sentences of fifteen years to life. ¶74 We conclude that Norton's contentions do not have merit. To begin with, Norton is correct that the court did not expressly explain its sentencing decision in terms of the proportionality rubric set out in LeBeau . But although Norton asked the court to reduce his sentence in the interests of justice, "he did not invoke the proportionality rubric in making his argument”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 2018 UT App 82 - State v. Norton

3. “Because LeBeau and its proportionality requirement predated [the defendant's] sentence, and because [the defendant] has not demonstrated that our presumption of appropriate sentencing consideration is inapplicable, we assume that the sentencing court duly considered the proportionality of [the defendant's] sentence.”

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