State v. Booze’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

2 district · 10 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 12 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““(k) For the purpose of determining whether a conviction is a first, second, third or subsequent conviction in sentencing under this section: “(1) [the term] ‘[c]onviction’ includes being convicted of a violation of this section or entering into a diversion agreement in lieu of further criminal proceedings on a complaint alleging a violation of this section.””

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 366 Pa. Super. 54 - Commonwealth v. Becker · 22 Kan. App. 2d 85 - State v. Knoff

2. ““The only real difference between diversion and being sentenced as a first offender (K.S.A. 1983 Supp. 8-1567[c]) is the incarceration. Under 22-2909(c), the defendant must pay the minimum statutory fine for a first offense or complete a set number of hours of community service, and he must enroll in and complete an alcohol and drug safety program. Moreover, the purpose behind the first offender sentence and the requirements of diversion are the same — both seek to rehabilitate. “This court, in Clevenger, discussed the public policy behind considering a diversion a ‘conviction’ for purposes of sentence enhancement and stated: ‘The intent of allowing diversion for the first DUI offense was the legislature’s recognition that although it had done away with plea bargaining, it deemed it appropriate to offer a less harsh option for a first offense. If, however, a defendant commits a second offense, there are no breaks. The purpose of sentence enhancement is to punish those who violate the law repeatedly. See State v. Lohrbach, 217 Kan. 588, 591 , 538 P.2d 678 (1975). A repeated violator of the DUI law should be subject to sentence enhancement on a second offense regardless of whether the individual went to jail or sought diversion for the first offense.’ 235 Kan. at 868. “In view of the nature of diversion in DUI cases, and the public policy behind sentence enhancement in DUI cases, it is apparent that the legislature must have intended that once a defendant has entered into a div”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 22 Kan. App. 2d 85 - State v. Knoff

3. ““The nature of diversion in the context of DUI violations is particularly indicative of the diversion’s conviction-like nature. In order to enter into a diversion agreement, a defendant must stipulate to the facts constituting the offense. If the diversion program is not completed, a trial is had to the court based solely upon the stipulation. Thus, while there is not a guilty plea, there is an admission by the defendant of the commission of the offense.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 51 F. Supp. 2d 1168 - United States v. Porter