378 So. 2d 635 - Usry v. State’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. “"However, we would bring to the attention of the Bench and Bar of this State that under the authority of Newell v. State, 308 So.2d 71 (Miss. 1975), we adopted the Mississippi Uniform Criminal Rules of Circuit Court Practice on August 10, 1979, which includes Rule 6.04, entitled `Procedure for Proof of Prior Convictions under the Habitual Criminal Statute', and which now supersedes the holding in Lay [ v. State, 310 So.2d 908 ] supra. Rule 6.04 provides as follows: `In cases involving enhanced punishment for subsequent offenses under the Habitual Criminal Statute [ Miss. Code Ann. § 99-19-83 (Supp. 1976)]: (1) The indictment must include both the principal charge and a charge of previous convictions. The indictment must allege with particularity the nature or description of the offense constituting the previous felonies, the state or federal jurisdiction of previous conviction, and the date of judgment.'" 378 So.2d at 638 .”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Wilson v. State · 398 So. 2d 1343 - Diddlemeyer v. State

2. “"Every person convicted in this state of a felony who shall have been convicted twice previously of any felony or federal crime upon charges separately brought and arising out of separate incidents at different times and who shall have been sentenced to and served separate terms of one (1) year or more in any state and/or federal penal institution, whether in this state or elsewhere, and where any one (1) of such felonies shall have been a crime of violence shall be sentenced to life imprisonment, and such sentence shall not be reduced or suspended nor shall such person be eligible for parole or probation."”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 403 So. 2d 875 - Ard v. State · 398 So. 2d 1343 - Diddlemeyer v. State

3. “"The wording of section 99-19-81 (Supp. 1978) leaves little doubt as to the intent of the legislature. It means precisely what it says. If a defendant is indicted and convicted of a primary crime, and in the same indictment is charged under this statute and found guilty, the trial court is mandated to impose upon such defendant the maximum term of imprisonment prescribed for such felony, and such sentence shall not be reduced or suspended nor shall such person be eligible for parole or probation." 378 So.2d at 638 .”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 403 So. 2d 875 - Ard v. State