State v. Jackson’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

34 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 34 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “"In reaching this conclusion, the Court of Appeals looked to other jurisdictions that have held that conditions of probation stated in a journal entry but not imposed in open court are of no effect. 37 Kan. App. 2d at 143 -44 , 150 P.3d 325 ; [citations omitted]. * "The Court of Appeals noted, however, that the rule is typically restricted to special conditions of probation. Standard conditions of probation imposed by statute in every case are excluded because the defendant has constructive notice of them and the conditions are implicit in the grant of every probation. 37 Kan. App. 2d at 144 , 150 P.3d 325 ; [citations omitted]. "We find that the statutorily required imposition of lifetime registration is an incident of sentencing, akin to restitution. K.S.A. 22-4906 speaks of persons who are 'required to register' and of a 'registration requirement.' Because registration is a mandatory, not a discretionary, act, the order of registration is the same kind of standard order of probation cited by our Court of Appeals in Baldwin . Because the defendant has constructive notice of the registration requirement, it is implicit in every sentence that falls within the scope of K.S.A. 22-4906. The journal entry did not modify the sentence but simply carried out a statutory imperative. The sentencing court had jurisdiction to include the registration requirement in the journal entry without making it part of the sentence imposed from the bench." Jackson , 291 Kan. at 36 -37 , 238 P.3d 2”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. State v. Marinelli · State v. Rocheleau

2. “"The rule against altering a sentence in a journal entry is not, however, absolute. Clarification is not the same as modification, and a district court retains jurisdiction to file a journal entry of sentencing that clarifies an ambiguous or poorly articulated sentence pronounced from the bench. [Citation omitted.] A sentencing court also has jurisdiction to modify a sentence after pronouncing it orally in order to correct an arithmetic or clerical error. [Citation omitted.] And a sentencing court may later set the exact amount of restitution to be paid after it has completed pronouncing sentence from the bench . State v. Cooper , 267 Kan. 15 , 18-19, 977 P.2d 960 (1999)." ( Emphasis added.) 291 Kan. at 36 , 238 P.3d 246 .”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. State v. Marinelli · State v. D.W.

3. “'Violent offender' includes any person who ... on or after July 1, 2006, is convicted of any person felony and the court makes a finding on the record that a deadly weapon was used in the commission of such person felony .”

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