Hobbs v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

84 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 84 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““Fourth: We hold that because the appellant was originally charged with second degree burglary, the maximum time for which is five years, it is an unconstitutional application of the included offense statute to sentence the appellant to a maximum period of ten years. We, therefore, hold the law in this state to be that a defendant may be tried on a charge and may be convicted of any lesser included offense as above defined. However, if, as in the case at bar, the lesser included offense carries a greater maximum sentence than the greater offense originally charged, the trial court has jurisdiction to sentence for a period not exceeding the maximum covered under the original charge. The court shall, however, in such instance give the defendant all benefit of any lesser minimum time as provided by the lesser included offense. For example, in the instant case the minimum time in prison for second degree burglary is two years whereas the minimum time for entering to commit a felony is one year. Appellant should receive the benefit of the one year minimum. “Fifth: We have now reevaluated the closing statement of this court in Dembowski and believe the appellant is entitled to immediate modification of his sentence. “This case, is, therefore, remanded to the trial court with instructions to enter a corrected judgment and commitment nunc pro tunc sentencing the defendant to the Indiana State Prison for not less than one nor more than five years.””

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Lee v. United States · 155 Ind. App. 231 - Harrison v. State

2. ““. . . All penalties shall be proportionate to the nature of the offense.””

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Jett v. State · Heathe v. State

3. ““. . . to be necessarily included in the greater offense, the lesser offense must be such that it is impossible to commit the greater without first having committed the lesser. This being true, the court is compelled to hold that, if a party is charged with a given crime he cannot be convicted of another crime of lesser magnitude under the provisions of § 2148, supra [Ind. Ann. Stat. § 9-1817 (1956 Repl.)], unless a conviction of the crime charged necessitates proof of all the essential elements of the lesser offense together with the added element which makes the difference in the two offenses.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Nye v. State