State v. Allen’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

9 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 10 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “[The defendant] clearly is a man with such extensive criminal history that he may be found a professional criminal ... [a]nd that has been his major source of livelihood apparently[;] ... the defendant is an offender whose record of criminal activity is extensive[;] ... [and] there can be no question that there’s a dangerous offender status.... No hesitation about not only committing the crime but committing it until you’re good and well ready to go.... [The defendant’s] convictions are all over this state ... in which homes have been invaded, victimization of individuals in most of these charges exists, whether it is by burglarizing a person’s house, or stealing from someone, or physically attacking someone. And I find that the community and the citizens are surely endangered by the presence of [the defendant] on the streets.”

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

2. “‘[t]he court’s decision to require that separate sentences be served consecutively in no way increases the penalties for the individual crimes.... Consecutive sentences are separate punishments for different offenses, and two sentences do not become a single sentence by virtue of their running consecutively. Thus, the principles underlying Appren-di do not apply to consecutive sentences because a judge’s decision on how two separate sentences for two distinct crimes shall be served is entirely different from the jury’s determination of whether the elements of a crime, necessary for a particular sentence for that crime, have been committed.’”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent
   e.g. State v. Moore

3. “The decision whether to impose consecutive sentences for multiple crimes is a decision about the manner in which a defendant serves his or her multiple punishments. Whether or not to “stack” sentences for multiple crimes is therefore akin to a trial court’s decision as to how and where a defendant serves his sentences: on probation, on community corrections, in split confinement, or in the penitentiary. Apprendi and Blakely simply do not require the jury to determine the manner in which a defendant serves multiple sentences.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent
   e.g. State of Tennessee v. James Allen Pollard