State v. Bolden’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

4 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 4 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““Applying the teachings of our prior cases, we hold that the consecutive sentences imposed ... were not grossly disproportionate in length to the crimes being punished. Each consecutive sentence was based upon a very serious crime, the distribution of crack cocaine. The sentences were imposed upon him as a recidivist who was guilty of prior violations of our controlled dangerous substance laws. In imposing the sentences the trial judge based his decision upon the serious threat to the community posed by dealers in crack cocaine and Bolden’s escalating pattern of violations of the laws prohibiting the possession and distribution of controlled dangerous substances. The sentences imposed were within the maximum terms prescribed by the Legislature for the criminal conduct of which Bolden had been ' convicted. Under these circumstances an extended proportionality analysis directed by Solem v. Helm, is not required.””

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

2. ““In considering a proportionality challenge, a reviewing court must first determine whether the sentence appears to be grossly disproportionate. In so doing, the court should look to the seriousness of the conduct involved, the seriousness of any relevant past conduct as in the recidivist cases, any articulated purpose supporting the sentence, and the importance of deferring to the legislature and to the sentencing court.””

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

3. ““If these considerations do not lead to a suggestion of gross disproportionality, the review is at an end. If the sentence does appear to be grossly disproportionate, the court should engage in a more detailed Solem,-type analysis.... In order to be unconstitutional, a punishment must be more than very harsh; it must be grossly disproportionate. This standard will not be easily met.””

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