419 So. 2d 475 - State v. Lanclos’s Empirical Analysis
1982
Citation profile
1,175 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 1,178 later decisions — most recently June 2019 · most notably 603 So. 2d 739 - State v. Lobato (1992), State v. Bradford (1997)
1,175 state decisions
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
Relationships
Relies on 398 So. 2d 1049 - State v. Jones · State v. Washington · State v. Abercrumbia · 389 So. 2d 1263 - State v. Douglas · 414 So. 2d 666 - State v. Wimberly
Cited together with Jackson v. Virginia · 433 So. 2d 688 - State v. Smith · 384 So. 2d 355 - State v. Bonanno · 398 So. 2d 1049 - State v. Jones · State v. Dorthey
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 1,178 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[W]here the offense to which the defendant has pled guilty inadequately describes his conduct, we find no abuse of the trial court's great discretion in imposing the maximum sentence possible for the crime to which the guilty plea is entered. This is particularly true where a significant reduction in potential exposure to imprisonment has been obtained through plea bargaining, and the offense involves violence to the victim.”
11 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Darby · State v. Hernandez“"However, the trial judge's failure to comply with Article 894.1 does not automatically render a sentence invalid. This court has held that although Article 894.1 provides useful guidelines for the determination of the nature and length of a sentence, compliance with its provisions is not an end in itself. State v. Wimberly, 414 So.2d 666 (La.1982). Article 894.1 is intended to provide an impartial set of guidelines within which the trial judge's sentencing discretion may be exercised. State v. Price, 403 So.2d 660 (La.1981); State v. Douglas, 389 So.2d 1263 (La. 1980). Compliance with Article 894.1 further provides a record which is detailed enough to allow for a reasoned review of allegedly excessive sentences. The articulation of the factual basis for a sentence is the goal of Article 894.1, not rigid or mechanical compliance with its provisions. Where the record clearly shows an adequate factual basis for the sentence imposed this court has held that remand is unnecessary, even where there has not been full compliance with Article 894.1. State v. Boatright, 406 So.2d 163 (La. 1981); State v. McDonald, 404 So.2d 889 (La.1981); State v. Martin, 400 So.2d 1063 (La.1981); State v. Douglas, supra."”
10 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Shelby · State v. Bridges“... [y]ou've been given ample opportunities in the past by the Courts to straighten up your life. And you have failed to take advantage of these prior periods of probation. You continued to violate the criminal laws of this state. It's felt that your attitude and your character at this time indicates that you would be likely to commit other crimes were you given probation... I find no grounds tending to excuse or justify your conduct... I don't find that addiction to [drugs] justifies your continued violation of the Louisiana criminal laws. I find no provocation and, as such, I feel that there is an undue risk that ... you would commit another offense. I feel that a lesser sentence would deprecate the seriousness of your crime. And I feel you are in need of correctional treatment within a custodial environment.”
5 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Burford · State v. Milton
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.