State v. McCallum’s Empirical Analysis
1995
Citation profile
21 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 21 later decisions — most recently July 2021
21 state decisions
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
Relationships
Relies on State v. Donlay · Memorial Hospital Ass'n, Inc. v. Knutson · City of Wichita v. 200 South Broadway, Ltd. Partnership · State v. Gonzales · Hughes v. Inland Container Corp.
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 21 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““(a) A departure sentence is subject to appeal by the defendant or the state. The appeal shall be to the appellate courts in accordance with rules adopted by the supreme court. “(b) Pending review of the sentence, the sentencing court or the appellate court may order the defendant confined or placed on conditional release, including bond. “(c) On appeal from a judgment or conviction entered for a felony committed on or after July 1, 1993, the appellate court shall not review: (1) Any sentence that is within the presumptive sentence for the crime; or (2) any sentence resulting from an agreement between the state and the defendant which the sentencing court approves on the record. “(d) In any appeal from a judgment of conviction imposing a sentence that departs from the presumptive sentence prescribed by the sentencing grid for a crime, sentence review shall be limited to whether the sentencing court’s findings of fact and reasons justifying a departure: (1) Are supported by the evidence in the record; and (2) constitute substantial and compelling reasons for departure. “(e) In any appeal; the appellate court may review a claim that: (1) A sentence that departs from the presumptive sentence resulting from partiality, prejudice, oppression or corrupt motive; (2) the sentencing court erred in either including or excluding recognition of a prior conviction or juvenile adjudication for criminal history scoring purposes; or (3) the sentencing court erred in ranking the crime severit”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Ware“although consecutive sentences per se are not included in the list of issues which may be appealed under K.S.A. 1993 Supp. 21-4721(a) and (e), neither are they listed among those issues which cannot be appealed under subsection (c).”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Young“'The total imprisonment term of the consecutive sentences, including the imprisonment term for the departure crime, shall not exceed twice the maximum presumptive imprisonment term of the departure sentence following aggravation.'”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Young
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.