30 So. 3d 1081 - State v. Hicks’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

2 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. “Neither the defendant’s evidence nor arguments about the potential prejudice that may have resulted from the delay in sentencing prove that he suffered any actual prejudice. The defendant offered no evidence of what his security designation would have been if he had been sentenced earlier on the armed robbery charge in Louisiana. There is no evidence that this defendant, an escapee found guilty of two armed robberies, would have been given a lower security designation in the absence of a detainer or if he had been sentenced sooner by the state____ With regard to the possibility of concurrent sentences, this is merely conjecture by the defendant rather than proof of prejudice. While there may have been the possibility of having the federal and state sentences run concurrently, neither the federal court nor the state dis trict court would have been required to order its sentence to run concurrently with the other. See 18 U.S.C. § 3584 and La. C. Cr. P. art. 883.1 The defendant has not met the burden of proving that he was prejudiced by the delay of approximately 10 years between his plea and the sentencing. Thus, reversal of his conviction and sentence is not warranted.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Hicks v. Wilkinson