People v. Brinson’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

2 federal appellate ·

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

1. “The Fifth Amendment’s Double Jeopardy Clause prohibits multiple punishments for the same crime (see United States v. DiFrancesco, 449 U.S. 117 , 129, 101 S.Ct. 426 , 66 L.Ed.2d 328 [1980] ...). This prohibition “prevents a sentence from being increased once the defendant has a legitimate expectation in the finality of the sentence” (People v. Williams, 14 N.Y.3d 198 , 215, 899 N.Y.S.2d 76 , 925 N.E.2d 878 [2010], citing DiFrancesco, 449 U.S. at 135-136 , 101 S.Ct. 426 ). However, defendants are presumed to be aware that a determinate prison sentence without a term of PRS is illegal ... and courts have an inherent authority to correct illegal sentences....”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Smith v. Wenderlich

2. “[PJursuant to Penal Law § 70.30(l)(d), the defendant’s 11-year determinate sentence was combined with his subsequently imposed consecutive indeterminate sentences, to form a single sentence-Since the defendant was still serving this single, combined sentence at the time of the resentencing, and had not yet been released from prison, he did not have a legitimate expectation of finality in the portion of his sentence attributable to his convictions of robbery in the second degree....”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Smith v. Wenderlich

3. “will have a legitimate expectation of finality upon completion of their respective aggregated sentences. Until such time, resentencing for purposes of correcting their illegal determinate sentences does not run afoul of the Double Jeopardy Clause and the prohibition against “multiple punishments.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Smith v. Wenderlich