29 Kan. App. 2d 501 - State v. Carr’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

3 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 3 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““[I]t is difficult to see how a dispositional departure such as Carr’s fits under the rationale of Apprendi . Pending contrary explicit guidance from the Supreme Court, we find Gould inapplicable to upward dispositional departures. It does not constitute an alternative basis for vacating the sentence in this case. Indeed, we view the Supreme Court’s post -Gould decision in State v. McKay, 271 Kan. 725 , 26 P.3d 58 (2001), as implicitly supportive of our reading of Gould . In McKay , the Supreme Court reached the merits of an upward dispositional departure sentence rather than reversing it immediately as violative of the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution. “Furthermore, our decision on this issue appears philosophically and analytically consistent with that in State v. Conley, 270 Kan. 18, 30-35 , 11 P.3d 1147 (2000), cert. denied 532 U.S. 932 (2001), which held that a district judge’s decision to impose a hard 40 sentence did not run afoul of Apprendi . In Conley , the hard 40 sentence potentially altered the mode of service of the defendant’s fife sentence, delaying initial parole eligibility from 25 years to 40 years. Here the dis-positional departure also merely altered the mode of service of Carr’s sentence; it did not extend its length. Gould did not affect the district judge’s power to alter the mode of service of the offender’s sentence.” 29 Kan. App. 2d at 505 .”

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