State v. Murphy’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

40 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 42 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “In refusing to sentence appellee as an habitual offender, the trial court stated that the word “may” in the recidivist statute indicated that sentencing an accused pursuant to that statute is discretionary with the trial court. The trial court relied on Mathis v. State, 267 Ark. 904 , 591 S.W.2d 679 (Ark. Ct. App. 1979). The trial court’s reliance was misplaced. In Mathis, the court of appeals incorrectly indicated that sentencing an accused as an habitual was a matter within the trial court’s discretion. Realizing its error, the court of appeals overruled Mathis in Rogers v. State, 10 Ark. App. 19 , 660 S.W.2d 949 (1983). This court has very clearly stated on several occasions that sentencing under the recidivist statute is mandatory, not optional. State v. Freeman, 312 Ark. 34 , 846 S.W.2d 660 (1993); McKillion v. State, 306 Ark. 511 , 815 S.W.2d 936 (1991); Woodson v. State, 302 Ark. 10 , 786 S.W.2d 120 (1990); Hart v. State, 301 Ark. 200 , 783 S.W.2d 40 (1990). This court has reasoned that the word “may” in the recidivist statute indicates that the jury or the trial court, whichever is considering the sentence to be imposed, has only the discretion to sentence an accused within the range of punishment set out in the recidivist statute. See e.g., McKillion, 306 Ark. 511 , 815 S.W.2d 936 . We have consistendy maintained our position on this issue and do so again today.”

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