State v. Key’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

16 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 16 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “"[T]his court lias also consistently held that a prior DUI is a sentencing enhancement factor for, not an element for trial proof of, K.S.A. 8-1567 DUI. See State v. Chamberlain, 280 Kan. 241 , Syl. ¶ 6, 120 P.3d 319 (2005) (showing of prior convictions goes only to question of defendant’s classification; legislature has declared repeated violations justify enhanced penalty); State v. Helgeson, 235 Kan. 534, 536 , 680 P.2d 910 (1984) (prior DUI ‘not a statutory element of the crime under K.S.A. 8-1567,. .. merely bears on tire penalty imposed’), overruled in part on other grounds by State v. Masterson, 261 Kan. 158 , 929 P.2d 127 (1996); see also State v. Loudermilk, 221 Kan. 157, 159-60 , 557 P.2d 1229 (1976) (previous DUI conviction not element of substantive crime, serves only to enhance punishment). This has been true before and since statutory amendments distinguishing a misdemeanor DUI from a felony DUI. See State v. Moody, 282 Kan. 181, 197 , 144 P.3d 612 (2006) (prior convictions not elements of DUI); State v. Larson, 265 Kan. 160, 164 , 958 P.2d 1154 (1998) (same); Masterson, 261 Kan. 158 , Syl. ¶ 1 (trial proof of prior conviction not necessary to establish guilt of later DUI, but defendant entitled under due process to notice in information, complaint of severity level being charged).””

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

2. ““Should the principles underlying our decision in Elliott, Neal, and Delacruz apply to prevent a judge from sentencing a DUI defendant to a felony sentence when one of the prior DUI misdemeanors needed to enhance the sentence resulted from an unauthorized guilty plea? If so, must this case be remanded to the district court for a factual determination on whether Key’s 2007 guilty plea was unauthorized, or has the State already failed to carry its burden of proving Key’s criminal history by a preponderance of the evidence, compelling vacation of the felony sentence and remand for resentencing on the felony DUI as a misdemeanor?” Key, 298 Kan. at 322 .”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 50 Kan. App. 2d 137 - State v. Key

3. “A guilty or no contest plea surrenders a criminal defendant's right to appeal his or her conviction but not his or her sentence.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. State v. Marinelli