State v. Bennett’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

23 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 23 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““THE COURT: From the information furnished to the Court in the presentence investigation discloses that the defendant was convicted of theft in Erie, Pennsylvania, and received two years probation. It also discloses that in June, of ‘85, the defendant was convicted of theft in Caruthersville, Missouri, and she was given probation upon being extradited to Nebraska. On September the 10th, of‘85, defendant was convicted of theft and received a one year sentence. In February the 10th, of ‘86, defendant was again convicted of theft and received one year. In May of this year — of ‘89, the battery, simple battery occurred here in Sedgwick County, defendant was given 30 days and fined $150.00. There’s always victims in theft cases, people whose property is taken sustains a loss. Of course, this case is not a theft case. “Possession of cocaine is a serious offense. Of course, the possession of marijuana is unlawful but it’s a misdemeanor. The Court can find no extenuating circumstances in this case. In Case No. 89 CR 1466 the Court is — will sentence the defendant to a minimum term of three years and a maximum term of 10 years. And in Case No. 89 CR 1736 the Court will sentence the defendant to one year in the Sedgwick County jail. It’s the further order of the Court that the defendant will be taken into custody by the sheriff of Sedgwick County and by him delivered to the custody of the Secretary of Corrections to serve these two sentences, which will run concurrently. The Court will”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. State v. Fisher

2. ““The State argues this court has no jurisdiction to hear this appeal pursuant to State v. Haines, 238 Kan. 478 , 712 P.2d 1211 , cert. denied 479 U.S. 837 (1986), because the defendant fails to allege that the sentence is the result of partiality, prejudice, or corrupt motive. “State v. Haines, 238 Kan. 478 , was overruled in part by State v. Harrold, 239 Kan. 645 , 722 P.2d 563 (1986), which was decided after the parties’ briefs were submitted. In Harrold , a majority of this court held that, pursuant to K.S.A. 22-3602(a), a direct appeal may be taken from a sentence imposed when the defendant pleads guilty or nolo contendere. This court further held that it is not necessary to allege the sentence is the -result of partiality, prejudice, or corrupt motive in order to present a justiciable issue. 239 Kan. at 649 . Therefore, this court does have jurisdiction to hear the defendant’s challenges to the sentence imposed.” Bennett, 240 Kan. at 576-77 .”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 15 Kan. App. 2d 369 - State v. Bruner

3. ““It is the sentencing court th,at determines the length of the defendant’s incarceration. While that court can make recommendations regarding rehabilitation, the sentencing court cannot determine where the defendant will serve his time. That decision is statutorily to be decided by the Secretary of Corrections in the exercise of his discretion. Therefore, the defendant’s complaint lies not with the sentencing court but with the Secretary of Corrections. The issue of whether the Secretary of Corrections has abused the exercise of his discretion is not a justiciable issue on this direct appeal from the sentence imposed. The court has no jurisdiction to consider it on this appeal.” 240 Kan. at 577 . (Emphasis added.)”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. State ex rel. Stephan v. Clark