Coles v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

122 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 124 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “because if the amount fixed exceeds the defendant’s resources, the rehabilitative purpose of the sentence is frustrated, especially where restitution is set as a condition of probation, “for in such a case the defendant is told that he will not be imprisoned only if he somehow satisfies a condition he cannot hope to satisfy.””

   4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. State v. Peterson · In Re Don Mc.

2. ““In addressing appellant’s attack on the propriety of the original sentencing order, we note that he took no appeal from the final judgment embodying that sentence. In fact, at sentencing, both appellant and his counsel urged the court to order restitution in lieu of incarceration, and it was not until the probation revocation hearing that appellant questioned the validity of his original sentence. The correctness of conditions of probation must be determined on an appeal from the final judgment of conviction and sentence, e.g., Bird v. State, 231 Md. 432, 437-38 , 190 A.2d 804, 807 (1963), and not on the subsequent revocation of probation, ‘because to do so, would, in effect, permit a circumvention of [Md.Rule 1012] which requires an appeal to be taken within thirty days’ following the entry of final judgment. Coleman v. State, 231 Md. 220, 223 , 189 A.2d 616, 618 (1963); see Stone v. State, 43 Md.App. 329 , 405 A.2d 345 (1979). To this, however, there is at least one exception. A trial court clearly has the authority and responsibility to correct an illegal sentence at any time, Md.Rule 774a; Carter v. Warden, 210 Md. 657 , 124 A.2d 574 (1956), cert. denied, 352 U.S. 900 [ 77 S.Ct. 136 , 1 L.Ed.2d 89 ] (1956), and the refusal to do so, no matter when the correction request is made, is appealable. State ex rel. Sonner v. Shearin, 272 Md. 502, 520 , 325 A.2d 573, 583 (1974); Roberts v. Warden, 206 Md. 246, 255 , 111 A.2d 597, 601 (1955).” 290 Md. at 303 , 429 A.2d at 1032 .”

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

3. “(b) Restitution upon conviction of crime; priority of payment.— (1) On conviction of a crime, the court may order the defendant to make restitution in addition to any other penalty for the commission of the crime, (2) The court may order that restitution be made to: (i) The victim; (ii) The Department of Health and Mental Hygiene or other governmental entity; or (iii) A third-party payor, including an insurer, which has made payment to the victim to compensate the victim for a property loss under paragraph (l)(i) of this subsection, or pecuniary loss under paragraph (l)(ii) of this subsection. (3) If the victim has been fully compensated for the victim’s loss by a third-party payor, the court may order restitution to the third-party payor. Otherwise, payment of restitution to the victim has priority over payment of restitution to the third-party payor.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 61 Md. App. 477 - Smitley v. State · Spielman v. State