State v. Favela’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 6 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““[T]he legislature did give some guidance in making the determination whether reasons justifying departure are substantial and compelling. “K.S.A. 1994 Supp. 21-4719(b)(1) states: ‘(b) When a sentencing judge departs in setting the duration of a presumptive term of imprisonment: (1) The judge shall consider an.d apply the enacted purposes and principles of sentencing guidelines to impose a sentence which is proportionate to die severity of the crime of conviction and the offender’s criminal history.’ (Emphasis added). “The Kansas Legislature did not specifically provide statutory purposes and objectives for the sentencing guidelines. However, the Court of Appeals points to die principles and purposes which the guidelines are based upon according to legislative history. These principles are: ‘ • Prison space should be reserved for serious/violent offenders. ‘ • The degree of sanctions imposed should be based on die harm inflicted. ‘ • Sanction should be uniform and not related to socioeconomic factors, race, or geographic location. ‘ • Penalties should be clear so everyone can understand exactly what has occurred after such are imposed. ‘ • Incarceration should be reserved for serious violent offenders who present a threat to public safety. ‘ • The State has an obligation to rehabilitate those incarcerated; but persons should not be sent to prison solely to gain education or job skills, as these programs should be available in the local community. ‘ • The system must be ration”

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

2. ““ ‘ “Cases in which die sentencing court does not rely upon any statutory aggravating or mitigating factors to depart should be viewed with a stricter scrutiny. However, when the sentencing court relies upon statutory aggravating or mitigating factors to depart, these reasons should be given great deference by a reviewing court.” 21 Kan. App. 2d at 215 .’ 259 Kan. at 238 .” 263 Kan. at 698 .”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
   e.g. State v. Sampsel