State v. Chambers’s Empirical Analysis
2006
Citation profile
34 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 34 later decisions — most recently July 2021 · most notably State v. Coman (2012), Rich v. State (2008)
34 state decisions
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
Relationships
Applies 42 U.S.C. § 14071 (§ 170101 of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994)
Relies on Apprendi v. New Jersey · Blakely v. Washington · Smith v. Doe · Phillips v. Washington Legal Foundation · 122 Wash. 2d 109 - State v. Halstien
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 34 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““We conclude that the punitive aspects inherent in the KORA do not implicate Apprendis essential focus — prohibiting a sentencing judge from imposing ‘a more severe sentence than the maximum sentence authorized by the facts found by the jury.’ Gould, 271 Kan. 394 , Syl. ¶ ¶ 2, 4. This determination results because our Supreme Court consistently has applied Apprendis constitutional guarantees in cases involving increased sentences (Gould and Anthony[, 273 Kan. at 729]), while declining to apply those same guarantees where the court found that the subject matter did not relate to a sentencing judge’s imposition of a more severe sentence than the maximum sentence entitled by the jury’s verdict (Carr[, 274 Kan. at 452], Garcia[, 274 Kan. at 711-12], and Beasley[, 274 Kan. at 722-23]). “We uphold the constitutionality of the KORA. Apprendi does not apply to a sentencing judge’s finding beyond a reasonable doubt that an offense was sexually motivated which results in imposition of the provisions of the KORA, K.S.A. 2005 Supp. 22-4901 et seq. “We hold the sentencing judge’s finding of sexual motivation in the present case did not increase the terms of Chambers’ underlying prison sentences beyond the maximum sentence provided for burglary. The sentencing judge’s determination of sexual motivation did not, therefore, implicate Apprendis guarantee of rights under the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution of the United States.” Chambers, 36 Kan. App. 2d at 239 .”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“[r]estitution orders must have limitations. Not all tangential costs incurred as a result of a crime should be subject to restitution.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Howell v. Com.“damage or loss caused by the defendant's crime”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Howell v. Com.
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.