228 N.J. Super. 586 - State v. Flores’s Empirical Analysis
1988
Citation profile
2 district · 48 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 51 later decisions — most recently April 2018 · most notably State v. Preciose (1992), State v. Marshall (1997)
2 district · 48 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 Bibby v. United States · Kelly v. Robinson · State v. Roth · State v. Yarbough · State v. Hodge
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 51 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“... mere excessiveness of sentence otherwise within authorized limits, as distinct from illegality by reason of being beyond or not in accordance with legal authorization, is not an appropriate ground for post-conviction relief, and can only be raised on direct appeal....”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“... the distinction between an `illegal' and an `excessive' sentence has become blurred.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“While identification of the applicable aggravating and mitigating factors may perhaps lend itself to abstract and objective analysis, the weighing process envisioned by the Code’s provisions necessarily reflects the seasoning and experience of the particular sentencing judge. To permit post-conviction review of the adequacy of the sentencing judge’s findings and conclusions would open the gates to an avalanche of grievances, often long after the sentence was imposed. In light of the availability of relief by way of direct appeal, we perceive no need to make post-conviction relief an open sesame for the wholesale review of sentences.... What has been said thus far applies with equal force to defendant’s argument that the consecutive sentences imposed ran afoul of the Yarbough guidelines. In our view, this is not an issue cognizable in post-conviction relief proceedings because it does not relate to the legality of the sentences imposed. [State v. Flores, supra, 228 N.J.Super. at 595-96 , 550 A.2d 752 (footnote omitted).]”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. State v. Acevedo
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.