36 So. 3d 1072 - State v. Maze’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

7 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 7 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “Finally, the offenses to which "the Defendant pled guilty did not adequately describe the entire course of his conduct, and the plea bargain resulted in a significant reduction in his potential exposure to imprisonment. The Defendant received a considerable benefit when he was allowed to plead to a lesser offense which may be considered when determining whether the sentence is excessive. See State v. Hicks, 07-726 (La.App. 3 Cir. 12/5/07) , 977 So.2d 1008 . We note that in the instant case, the trial court took cognizance of the requirement of La.Code Crim.P. art. 894.1. The trial court is not required to list every aggravating or mitigating circumstance as long as the record reflects adequate compliance. See State v. Hutcherson, 34,540 (La.App. 2 Cir. 4/4/01), 785 So.2d 140 . In comparing the Defendant to other similarly’situated defendants, the following cases are pertinent. In State v. Holmes, 99-631 (La.App. 1 Cir. 2/18/00) , 754 So.2d 1132 , writ denied, 00-1020 (La.3/30/01), 788 So.2d 440 , in a similar factual scenario, the first circuit did not find the maximum sentence imposed on a conviction for attempted manslaughter to be excessive. The defendant in that case, charged with second degree murder and attempted second degree murder, was found guilty of manslaughter and attempted manslaughter. He was sentenced to forty years and twenty years, ^respectively, to be served concurrently. The defendant had crawled into his former wife’s bedroom window, shot and killed her l”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 195 So. 3d 668 - State v. Benoit

2. “In deciding whether a sentence is shocking or makes no meaningful contribution to acceptable penal goals, an appellate court may consider several factors including the nature of the offense, the circumstances of the offender, the legislative purpose behind the punishment and a comparison of the sentences imposed for similar crimes. While a comparison of sentences imposed for similar crimes may provide some insight, “it is well settled that sentences must be individualized to the particular offender and to the particular offense committed.” Additionally, it is within the purview of the trial court to particularize the sentence because the trial judge “remains in the best position to assess the aggravating and mitigating circumstances presented by each case.” |/‘Generally, maximum sentences are reserved for those cases that involve the most serious violations of the offense charged and the worst type of offender.” State v. Jones, 05-735, p. 6 (La.App. 5 Cir. 2/27/06), 924 So.2d 1113, 1116 .”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 118 So. 3d 22 - State v. Monceaux

3. “, armed with a shotgun, broke Out the window Of a motel room where his former wife and her boyfriend were staying and shot the boyfriend in the chest. The- second shot went through the room wall into the next room and injured its- occupant. It was- noted that the defendant had a lengthy arrest record and’ had three prior felonies wherein he' received prison time, and, in ’each case,”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 195 So. 3d 668 - State v. Benoit