418 N.J. Super. 548 - State v. Pennington’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

5 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 5 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “'for an offense committed prior to the former sentence other than an offense committed while in custody,'”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. State of New Jersey v. James Boykins · State v. Hudson

2. “that the timing of trials or the number of trials for different offenses should not affect the limitations established by Subsection (1). Thus, if a defendant has committed two offenses, the sentencing limitations established by this section will apply if he is tried separately for the two crimes as well as if he is tried for both offenses at the same time. Subsection (2) also sets forth other principles to control the situation in which the defendant is being sentenced for an offense that was committed prior to the imposition of another sentence. [ Id. at 557 , 14 A. 3d 790 (quoting MPC § 7.06 explanatory note).]”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. State v. Hudson

3. “Subsection (2) [of MPC § 7.06] is based on the premise that the timing of the trials for multiple charges against a defendant should have as little bearing on the extent of his exposure to consecutive sentences as possible. In other words, the limits on consecutive sentences should apply in like manner when the defendant is tried and sentenced in the same proceeding for multiple offenses and when he is tried separately for each of them, either by the same court or by another comparable court within the same state. [ MPCC, supra, § 7.06, cmt. 3.]”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. State v. Hudson