State v. Stewart’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

25 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 27 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “In Solem v. Helm, 463 U.S. 277 , 103 S.Ct. 3001 , 77 L.Ed.2d 637 (1983), the Supreme Court held a sentence of life imprisonment without the possibility of parole for a seven-time non-violent felony recidivist unconstitutionally disproportionate. In so finding, the Court emphasized that successful challenges to the proportionality of a particular sentence are exceedingly rare.... The Court stated that appellate courts’ proportionality review should be guided by objective criteria, including: “(i) the gravity of the offense and the harshness of the penalty; (ii) the sentences imposed on other criminals in the same jurisdiction; and (iii) the sentences imposed for commission of the same crime in other jurisdictions.” Id. at 292 , 103 S.Ct. at 3011 , 77 L.Ed.2d 637 . In Harmelin v. Michigan, [ 501 U.S. 957 , 111 S.Ct. 2680 , 115 L.Ed.2d 836 (1991)] the Supreme Court revisited its decision in Solem . Justice Kennedy, concurring in the judgment, and writing for himself and three other justices, clarified that “the Eighth Amendment does not require strict proportionality between crime and sentence. Rather it forbids only extreme sentences that are ‘grossly disproportionate’ to the crime.” Harmelin, 501 U.S. at 1001 , 111 S.Ct. at 2705 , 115 L.Ed.2d 836 (Kennedy, J., concurring) ____Therefore, a detailed proportionality review based on the criteria set out in Solem is “appropriate only in the rare case in which a threshold comparison of the crime committed and the sentence imposed le”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
   e.g. Cathcart v. State

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. See [State v.] Davis, 310 Md. [611,] 631-32, 530 A.2d 1223 [ (1987) ] and Minor [v. State], 313 Md. [573,] 583-84, 546 A.2d 1028 , [ (1988) ]. 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 ... analysis. It may conduct an intra- and inter-jurisdictional analysis as a vehicle for comparison and as a source of objective standards; it must, however, remember that under principles of federalism, a state legislature may choose to impose a more severe penalty than other states consider appropriate. In order to be unconstitutional, a punishment must be more than very' harsh; it must be grossly disproportionate.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
   e.g. 232 Md. App. 125 - Howard v. State

3. “(a) Prohibited conduct.—Except as authorized by this subheading, it is unlawful for any person: (1) To ... possess a controlled dangerous substance in sufficient quantity to reasonably indicate under all circumstances an intent to manufacture, distribute, or dispense, a controlled dangerous substance; (b) Penalty.—Any person who violates any of the provisions of subsection (a) of this section with respect to: (1) A substance classified in Schedules I or II which is a narcotic drug is guilty of a felony and is subject to imprisonment for not more than 20 years, 'or a fine of not more than $25,000, or both. (c) Sentencing.—(1) A person who is convicted under subsection (b)(1) ... of this section shall be sentenced to imprisonment for not less than 10 years and subject to a fíne not exceeding $100,000 if the person previously has been convicted: (i) Under subsection (b)(1) ... of this section;.... (2) The prison sentence of a person sentenced under subsection (b)(1) ... of this section ..., as a second offend er may not be suspended to less than 10 years, and the person may be paroled during that period only in accordance with § 4-305 of the Correctional Services Article.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 187 Md. App. 1 - Nelson v. State