State v. Sanchez’s Empirical Analysis
2002
Citation profile
16 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 16 later decisions — most recently March 2025
16 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 Miranda v. State of Arizona Vignera · Giglio v. United States · Santobello v. New York · Fare v. Michael C. · Porzig v. Nolden
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 16 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[t]he court shall... allow arguments from the prosecutor, the defense counsel, the offender, the victim, the survivor of the victim, or a representative of the victim or survivor, and an investigative law enforcement officer as to the sentence to be imposed.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“[The preparer of a presentence report is to be a neutral and independent participant in the sentencing process. It necessarily follows that a parole or probation officer acts on behalf of an independent judiciary, not as an agent of the state, in preparing a presentence report. Like the sentencing court, the preparer of a presen-tence report is neither a party to nor bound by a plea agreement between the defendant and the state and, therefore, cannot breach the terms of that agreement in preparing the report. [[Image here]] We conclude that, in preparing the presen-tence report, the probation officer was acting on behalf of an independent judiciary and not as an agent of the state. Accordingly, we hold that the probation officer was neither a party to nor bound by the plea agreement between the defendant and the state and could not breach the terms of that agreement by including a recitation of the dismissed counts in the presentence report.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Duke v. State“the CCO has an independent duty of investigation and recommendation in these cases. The CCO is not part of the prosecution team. The CCO was not fnvolved in the preparation of, nor the promises made in, the plea agreement.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Duke v. State
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.