2018 UT App 82 - State v. Norton’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

3 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 3 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “Ranging across the criminal code in an effort to (1) identify similar offenses and (2) compare their sentencing schemes to the sentence [Coombs] received.... is certainly not a task that we can require our [sentencing] courts to perform without prompting or guidance from counsel.”

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

2. “[W]e will not fault the court for failing to conduct a sua sponte review of the Utah Code to identify similar offenses and then compare their sentencing schemes to the sentence it intended to impose on [the defendant].”

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

3. “[C]ourts should consider all relevant facts raised by the parties about the defendant's crime in relation to the harshness of the penalty.”

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