Greco v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

2 federal appellate · 114 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 116 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““Consonant with Rule 4-345(b), a criminal defendant may file a request for modification or reduction of sentence within 90 days of the imposition of that sentence. If the sentencing court grants a motion for modification and reduces the sentence, this subsequent sentence then becomes the effective sentence. See Madison v. State, 205 Md. 425, 435 , 109 A.2d 96, 100-01 (1954) (concluding that a motion to modify must be timely in order to ‘strike out’ the original sentence); Hurwitz v. State, 200 Md. 578, 581 , 92 A.2d 575, 576 (1952) (‘On motion of appellant, this sentence was stricken out, and he was resentenced....’); Czaplinski v. Warden, 196 Md. 654, 655-56 , 75 A.2d 766, 766-67 (1950) (noting that the original sentence ‘was reconsidered and stricken out ... and the applicant was re-sentenced’); Collins v. State, 69 Md.App. 173, 193 , 516 A.2d 1015, 1025 (1986) (‘The effect of the modified or clarified sentence was to strike out the [initial] sentence and any infirmity attaching to it.’), cert. denied, 308 Md. 572 , 520 A.2d 1328 (1987). Thus, a reimposition of sentence in these circumstances is the equivalent of an ‘imposition’ [of] sentence under Maryland Rule 4-345(b). Accordingly, we hold that, when a sentencing court grants a timely request for modification or reduction of sentence, the defendant may file another request for modification or reduction of sentence within 90 days of the date of the subsequent imposition of sentence.””

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Webster v. State · 155 Md. App. 346 - Pitts v. State

2. ““The issue decided in Johnson was whether the granting of a motion to modify a sentence tolled the 30-day period within which the defendant was required to file an appeal. Id. at 30, 333 A.2d at 37-38 . The Court in that case recognized that the granting of a motion to modify or reduce a sentence had the effect of revising the judgment in a criminal case, but did not create ‘the entry of a wholly new judgment,’ and thus had no implication for appeal deadlines. Id. at 41-42 , 333 A.2d at 43-44 . “Under Maryland law, a final judgment in a criminal case is comprised of the verdict of guilty, and the rendition of sentence. Middleton v. State, 318 Md. 749, 759 , 569 A.2d 1276, 1281 (1990). As related to this case, Johnson stands for the proposition that the granting of a motion to modify or reduce a sentence revises a final judgment because the original sentence has been stricken, but that final judgment is not ‘wholly new’ because the underlying verdict of guilty remains unchanged.””

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

3. “To interpret rules of procedure, we use the same principles and canons of construction as are used to interpret statutes. When construing a rule, the Court first looks to the text of the rule, giving those words their ordinary and natural meaning. When the words are clear and unambiguous, ordinarily our inquiry ends. When, however, the language of the rule is ambiguous, we look elsewhere to discern the legislative intent. It then becomes necessary to survey the surrounding circumstances in which the rale was drafted to accurately discern the intent of the Court of Appeals in promulgating that rule.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 187 Md. App. 323 - Worsham v. Greenfield