459 So. 2d 581 - State v. Robertson’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

14 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 14 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “"A. An illegal sentence may be corrected at any time by the court that imposed the sentence or by an appellate court on review. "B. A sentence may be reviewed as to its legality on the application of the defendant or of the state: (1) In an appealable case by appeal; or (2) In an unappealable case by writs of certiorari and prohibition."”

   7 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Sepcich · State v. Ruffin

2. “"We are mindful of State v. Jackson, 452 So.2d 682 (La.1984), in which the Supreme Court of Louisiana stated that `...it is inappropriate for an appellate court to correct the sentence when the defendant alone seeks appellate review.' Such action by an appellate court, the Supreme Court said, would have a `chilling effect' on the exercise of the right to appeal. Nonetheless, Art. 882 does give appellate courts the authority to correct an illegally lenient sentence `... on the application of the defendant or of the state. ' (Underlining supplied.) The term `application' is not further described, but in the instant case we are not prepared to say that the prosecution has made sufficient `application'. If the prosecution now seeks correction of the illegally lenient sentence imposed on Robertson, it must first approach the district judge. The Supreme Court in Jackson said: `Only the prosecution can seek correction of the error, and this should be done by applying first to the trial court, subject to subsequent appellate review.' Art. 882, too, seems to indicate that an application is necessary, particularly if the two pertinent sentences of the article are read together. Regardless, the prosecution had not made adequate application here; and while we recognize the illegally lenient sentence imposed on Robertson, we are hesitant to correct it without having formally been asked to do so."”

   5 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Sepcich · State v. Ruffin

3. “at hard labor for not less than five years and for not more than ninety-nine years, without benefit of parole, probation or suspension of sentence.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Sepcich · State v. Ruffin