21 Va. App. 338 - Briggs v. Commonwealth’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

8 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 8 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “The obvious purpose of Code § 19.2-306 is remedial; it provides closure and a time limitation when the trial court fails to include such a limitation in its order of suspension. Nothing in Code § 19.2-306 indicates that the legislature intended to limit the trial court’s authority under Code § 19.2-303.1 to fix a period of suspension for a “reasonable time ... without regard to the maximum period for which the defendant might have been sentenced.” When the trial court revoked its suspension of imposition of sentence on November 10, 1983, it was well within the statutory time limitation of Code § 19.2-306. At that time, the trial court could have suspended the five-year suspended sentence for a period of ten years (or more), being limited only by what would be “reasonable.” Code § 19.2-303.1. Because the trial court was again silent as to the period of suspension, the limitations of Code § 19.2-306 applied from that point. If we accepted appellant’s argument that because on November 10, 1983 the trial court failed to set a specific time for the suspension, the statutory time began to run from the date imposition of sentence was withheld — January 13, 1982 — appellant would receive a benefit because of the trial court’s indulgence and attempts to help appellant overcome his drug dependency. Clearly, this was not the legislature’s intent and the plain language of the statute does not require such a result.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 32 Va. App. 148 - Wright v. Commonwealth