State v. Grady’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

40 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 40 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““(a) The sentencing judge shall impose the presumptive sentence provided by the sentencing guidelines . . . unless the judge finds substantial and compelling reasons to impose a departure. If the sentencing judge departs from the presumptive sentence, the judge shall state on the record at the time of sentencing the substantial and compelling reasons for the departure.””

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. State v. Mitchell · State v. Eisele

2. ““(2) Subject to the provisions of subsection (b)(3), the following nonexclusive list of aggravating factors may be considered in determining whether substantial and compelling reasons for departure exist: “(B) The defendant’s conduct during the commission of the current offense manifested excessive brutality to the victim in a manner not normally present in that offense.” “(3) If a factual aspect of a crime is a statutory element of the crime or is used to sub-classify the crime on the crime severity scale, that aspect of the current crime of conviction may be used as an aggravating or mitigating factor only if the criminal conduct constituting that aspect of the current crime of conviction is significantly different from the usual criminal conduct captured by the aspect of the crime. “(c) In determining aggravating or mitigating circumstances, the court shall consider: (1) Any evidence received during the proceeding; (2) the presentence report; (3) written briefs and oral arguments of either the state or counsel for the defendant; and (4) any other evidence relevant to such aggravating or mitigating circumstances that the court finds trustworthy and rehable.” (Emphasis added.)”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. State v. Cox · State v. Eisele

3. “"The Kansas Legislature did not include in the statutes the purposes and objectives of the guidelines. According to the legislative history, the Kansas Sentencing Guidelines Act (KSGA), K.S.A. 1994 Supp. 21-4701 et seq. , is based on the following principles: "1. Prison space should be reserved for serious/violent offenders who present a threat to society. "2. The degree of sanctions imposed should be based on the harm inflicted. "3. Sanctions should be uniform and not related to socioeconomic factors, race, or geographic location. "4. Penalties should be clear so everyone can understand exactly what has occurred once sentence is imposed. "5. The State has an obligation to rehabilitate those incarcerated, but persons should not be sent to prison solely to gain education or job skills, as these programs should be available in the community. "6. The system must be rational to allow policy makers to allocate resources. * Coates, Summary of the Recommendations of the Sentencing Commission, p. 6 (Report to Senate Committee on Judiciary, January 14, 1992). See also Kansas Sentencing Guidelines Implementation Manual, p. i-1-2 (1992). "Additionally, this court has recognized that the purpose of the retroactivity provision of the KSGA is to reduce prison overcrowding while protecting public safety. The guidelines were intended to standardize sentences so that similarly situated offenders would be treated the same, limiting the effects of racial or geographic bias. State v. Gonzales, 2”

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