Ex parte Lucero’s Empirical Analysis
1917
Citation profile
1 federal appellate · 26 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 27 later decisions — most recently April 2011 · most notably State v. Brusenhan (1968), Slayton v. Commonwealth (1946)
1 federal appellate · 26 state decisions — followed in 12 states
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 Alvarez v. State · State ex rel. O'Connor v. Wolfer · In re Lujan · People v. Moore · Ex parte Brady
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 27 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““Upon principle it would seem that due process of law would require notice and opportunity to be heard before a defendant can be committed under suspended sentence. The suspension of the execution of the sentence gives to the defendant a valuable right. It gives to him the right of personal liberty, which is one of the highest rights of citizenship. This right cannot be taken from him without notice and opportunity to be heard without invading his constitutional rights. Of course, if the terms of the suspension of the sentence are such as to leave open no question of fact, as where it is provided that the sentence is suspended until the further order of the court in its discretion, it may be that no notice or hearing would be required. In such a ease the court would retain the right to enforce the sentence at any time in its discretion, to which the defendant may be held to consent when he accepts the benefits of the court’s leniency» • Just how far, if at all, arbitrary action by tbe court might be inquired into even in such a case, it is not necessary or proper for us to decide, for we have no such case before us. Here the sentence was suspended during good behavior, which necessarily involves the determination of a question of fact, in which determination the defendant is entitled to be heard. In such a determination the defendant is not entitled to a jury trial any more than upon the allocution at the time of the original sentence, except in case he pleads want of identit”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. O'Neal
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.