270 N.J. Super. 55 - State v. Baker’s Empirical Analysis
1994
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 52 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 54 later decisions — most recently April 2018 · most notably State v. Lotter (1998), State v. Haliski (1995)
2 federal appellate · 52 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 Strickland v. Washington · Miranda v. State of Arizona Vignera · Gideon v. Wainwright · North Carolina v. Pearce · United States v. Cronic
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 54 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“plea bargain which may not be legally implemented.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Generally, jeopardy attaches once a defendant commences serving a term of imprisonment. State v. Ryan, 86 N.J. 1, 10 , 429 A. 2d 332 , cert. denied, 454 U.S. 880 , 102 S.Ct. 363 , 70 L.Ed. 2d 190 (1981). Consequently, a defendant who has begun to serve a sentence ordinarily may not be resentenced to an increased term, including any increase in a period of parole ineligibility. See State v. Cruz, 125 N.J. 550, 559-63 , 593 A. 2d 1169 (1991). However, if the original sentence imposed upon a defendant is illegal, the sentence may be corrected at any time, even if this requires an increase in the term of imprisonment. Bozza v. United States, 330 U.S. 160 , 67 S.Ct. 645 , 91 L.Ed. 818 (1947); State v. Kirk, 243 N.J.Super. 636, 641-45 , 581 A. 2d 115 (App.Div.1990); State v. Sheppard, 125 N.J.Super. 332, 336 , 310 A. 2d 731 (App.Div.), certif. denied, 64 N.J. 318 , 315 A. 2d 407 (1973). [ State v. Baker, supra, 270 N.J.Super. at 72 , 636 A. 2d 553 .]”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“We would frustrate this legislative directive [to impose the more severe sentence] if we were to conclude that defendant may avoid the statutorily required minimum sentence because the trial court, unaware of the recent legislative amendment, initially failed to impose the mandated period of parole ineligibility, and the prosecuting authorities, also unaware of the amendment, failed to challenge the sentence for more than a year-and-a-half. Under these circumstances, we conclude that even if defendant had a subjective expectation of the finality of his original sentence, it would not be a "legitimate" expectation entitled to protection under the Double Jeopardy Clauses of the State and Federal Constitutions because it would be inconsistent with the statutorily mandated minimum sentence. [ Id. at 76-77 , 636 A. 2d 553 .]”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
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.