State v. Watkins’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

4 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 4 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “[T]he trial court should take evidence and make findings on (1) whether the delay in sentencing defendant had any valid justification tied to defendant's incarceration in federal prison in 2005 and 2006-for instance, whether his federal incarceration hampered the State's efforts to sentence defendant in North Carolina court; (2) whether defendant consented to the delay in sentencing by failing to request sentencing on or around 23 January 2006, compare Degree, 110 N.C.App. at 641 -42 , 430 S.E.2d at 493 (stating that a defendant's failure to request sentencing on the last date to which prayer for judgment is continued is "tantamount to his consent to a continuation of the sentencing hearing beyond that date."), with Lea, 156 N.C.App. at 181, 576 S.E.2d at 133 ("a prayer for judgment may not be continued over the defendant's objection." (citation and quotation marks omitted)); and (3) whether defendant was in fact prejudiced. Without further factual findings from the trial court on these questions, any attempt by this Court to conclusively decide whether the trial court was stripped of jurisdiction due to an "unreasonable" delay in sentencing would be based on pure speculation.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 246 N.C. App. 725 - State v. Watkins

2. “Because we hold the trial court's findings on the threshold issue of jurisdiction were insufficient and remand for a de novo re-sentencing hearing to allow for findings on that issue, we do not address defendant's remaining arguments. .... Nevertheless, there are insufficient facts in the record for this Court to weigh the remaining three factors we considered in Degree . Thus, we must remand for a de novo sentencing hearing. .... We therefore remand this case for a de novo sentencing hearing in accordance with this Court's holding in Degree, 110 N.C.App. at 641 , 430 S.E.2d at 493 , so the trial court can properly consider the jurisdictional issue raised by defendant. .... Therefore, the trial court's judgment must be reversed and this case remanded for a de novo sentencing hearing so the trial court may have an opportunity to take evidence and make findings relevant to this issue.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 246 N.C. App. 725 - State v. Watkins

3. “apparently due to an administrative oversight, the trial court did not complete defendant's appellate entries until more than four years later, on 13 September 2012. On 1 April 2013, defendant filed a petition for writ of certiorari in this Court "to permit appellate review of the July 3, 2008 Judgment and Commitment because [defendant] has lost his right to prosecute an appeal by failure to take timely action due to no fault of his own." The State responded on 9 April 2013 and filed a motion to dismiss the appeal pursuant to N.C.R.App. P. 25(a), arguing defendant failed to timely "take any action required to present the appeal for decision."”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 246 N.C. App. 725 - State v. Watkins