Chertkov v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

46 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 48 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “(a) Conditions for Agreement. The defendant may enter into an agreement with the State’s Attorney for a plea of guilty or nolo contendere on any proper condition, including one or more of the following: [[Image here]] (6) That the parties will submit a plea agreement proposing a particular sentence, disposition, or other judicial action to a judge for consideration pursuant to section (c) of this Rule. [[Image here]] (c) Agreements of sentence, disposition, or other judicial action. (1) Presentation to the Court. If a plea agreement has been reached pursuant to subsection (a)(6) of this Rule for a plea of guilty or nolo contendere which contemplates a particular sentence, disposition, or other judicial action, the defense counsel and the State’s Attorney shall advise the judge of the terms of the agreement when the defendant pleads. The judge may then accept or reject the plea and, if accepted, may approve the agreement or defer decision as to its approval or rejection unless after such presentence proceedings and investigation as the judge directs. (2) Not Binding on the Court. The agreement of the State’s Attorney relating to a particular sentence, disposition, or other judicial action is not binding on the court unless the judge to whom the agreement is presented approves it. (3) Approval of Plea Agreement. If the plea agreement is approved, the judge shall embody in the judgment the agreed sentence, disposition, or other judicial action encom passed in the agreement or, w”

   7 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Smith v. State · 230 Md. App. 214 - State v. Smith

2. “By modifying the sentence, the [trial] court did not act sans jurisdiction____ It has long been well established that, in Maryland, trial courts have inherent power to modify their judgments both in civil and criminal cases____ Initially, the power existed only during the term in which the order was entered. That power is now codified in Maryland Rule 4-345(b)____ Furthermore, the modified sentence fell within the permitted range of sentences for the particular offense; but for the plea agreement, the modified sentence would be immune from attack on illegality ground. Consequently, it is quite clear that the court’s modification of its sentence, notwithstanding its effect on a binding plea agreement, is not illegal in the sense that the court acted without jurisdiction.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 125 Md. App. 428 - State v. Rodriguez

3. ““[S]ection 12-302(c)(2) ‘specifie[d] the type of illegality which must be alleged for the State to be entitled to appeal.’ Telak, 315 Md. at 574 , 556 A.2d at 228 . And it did so clearly and unambiguously; when it referred to a failure to impose the sentence specifically mandated by the Code, it was not referring to the Maryland Rules or anything else other than the statutory law of this State. There is no justification, therefore, for expanding the meaning of section 12-302(c)(2) to encompass more.””

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