State v. Young’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

1 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 1 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “Under K.S.A. 2018 Supp. 21-6819(a) a court has the discretion to determine whether manifest injustice exists to override the mandatory non-KSGA sentencing rule in K.S.A. 2018 Supp. 21-6606(c). Such a decision is distinctively different than whether to impose consecutive or concurrent presumptive KSGA sentences and is more akin to a departure sentence. This interpretation is further bolstered by the language of K.S.A. 2018 Supp. 21-6819(b). In context, immediately following the provision in subsection (a) indicating that concurrent sentences in combination probation and new crime sentencing cases can be given upon a finding that it would result in manifest injustice to give consecutive sentences, subsection (b) says: 'The sentencing judge shall otherwise have discretion to impose concurrent or consecutive sentences in multiple conviction cases.' (Emphasis added.) This language indicates that application of subsection (a) is different than the standard consecutive/concurrent sentencing discretion discussed in cases cited by the majority.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent
   e.g. State v. Young

2. “Consecutive presumptive sentences under the Kansas Sentencing Guidelines Act do not constitute sentencing departures and are not appealable. State v. Jacobs, 293 Kan. 465, 466 , 263 P.3d 790 (2011).”

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