State v. Crocker’s Empirical Analysis
1979
Citation profile
11 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 11 later decisions — most recently June 2015
11 state decisions
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
Relationships
Relies on Farmer v. State · Watford v. State · 173 Ind. App. 27 - Wolfe v. State · Holsclaw v. State · 174 Ind. App. 202 - Maynard v. State
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 11 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“In [Crocker ], our supreme court dealt with the question of whether a defendant could petition for reduction of his sentence under a modification to the statute enacted after his sentencing. At the time of sentencing in Crocker, IND. CODE § 85-7-1-1 permitted the trial court to suspend the remainder of a sentence anytime within six months of the time sentence was imposed. Subsequently, the statute was amended to permit the court to reduce or suspend within the six month period. In sustaining the State's appeal, the court noted the old statute did not authorize the sentencing court to reduce the sentence as allowed by the new statute. The court found the general rule applicable, particularly because no retroactive provision was found in the new statute. We believe Crocker to be distinguishable from [the facts in Willis]. In Crocker, there was a substantive change because the new statute gave the sentencing court new powers, that is, the power to reduce as well as suspend the remainder of the sentence. No such substantive change is involved here. At the time of sentencing IND.CODE § 35-38-1-17(b) permitted the sentence ing court to modify a sentence, either by reduction or suspension, at any time within 180 days of sentencing. The amendment effective June 1, 1985, did not make any changes in the sentencing court's power over the sentence, but merely permitted, under certain cireum-stances, the sentencing court to consider sentence modification of the same kind more than 180 day”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Morris v. State“new statute relied upon ... has no provision for retroactive application”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Morris v. State
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.