Marquess v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

2 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 2 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““ISSUE Marquess presents a single issue for our review: Whether the trial court erred by imposing an additional three year sentence above the basic five year penalty for a Class C felony when no specific findings of aggravating circumstances were given. DISCUSSION AND DECISION Ind.Code 35-4.1-4-3 (Supp.1978) provides: ‘Sentencing Hearing in Felony Cases. Before sentencing a person for a felony the court must conduct a hearing to consider the facts and circumstances relevant to sentencing. The person is entitled to subpoena and call witnesses and otherwise to present information in his own behalf. The court shall make a record of the hearing, including: (1) a transcript of the hearing; (2) a copy of the presentence report; and (3) if the court finds aggravating circumstances or mitigating circumstances, a statement of the court’s reasons for selecting the sentence that it imposes.’ (Emphasis added.) Furthermore; we note, under Ind.Code 35-4.1—4-7(c), (d), factors which the court may consider as aggravating circumstances; the statutes provide: ‘(c) The court may consider these factors as aggravating circumstances or as favoring imposing consecutive terms of imprisonment: (1) The person has recently violated the conditions of any probation, parole, or pardon granted him. (2) The person has a history of criminal activity. (3) The person is in need of correctional or rehabilitative treatment that can best be provided by his commitment to a penal facility. (4) Imposition of a reduc”

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

2. “Tnd.Code § 35-4.1-4-3 (Burns § 35-40-1A-3) requires the trial court to make a record of the sentencing hearing, including “ * * * a statement of the court’s reasons for selecting the sentence that it imposes,” if it finds aggravating circumstances. The purpose of such statute is to confine the judge to proper grounds for either increasing or decreasing the presumptive or basic sentence provided for the offense and to enable this Court to determine the reasonableness of the sentence imposed, under the circumstances. “ * * * when a judge increases or decreases the basic sentence, suspends the sentence, or imposes consecutive terms of imprisonment, the record should disclose that factors were considered by the judge to be mitigating or aggravating circumstances. The scope of review for sentences is now defined within our Rules for the Appellate Review of Sentences: ‘2(1) The reviewing court will not revise a sentence authorized by statute except where such sentence is manifestly unreasonable in light of the nature of the offense and the character of the offender.’ ” Gardner v. State, (1979) Ind., 388 N.E.2d 513, 517 . The sentencing record before us contains no statement concerning aggravating circumstances to support the imposition of the enhanced sentence, as required by the statute.’ (Emphasis added.) While the trial court, at the sentencing hearing, pronounced that ‘aggravating circumstances ... outweigh the mitigating circumstances,’ it did not proffer any particular reason”

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