471 So. 2d 701 - State v. Cann’s Empirical Analysis
1985
Citation profile
213 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 214 later decisions — most recently December 2018 · most notably 839 So. 2d 1 - State v. Smith (2003), 769 So. 2d 1158 - State v. Guzman (2000)
213 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 384 So. 2d 355 - State v. Bonanno · State v. Abercrumbia · 319 So. 2d 396 - State v. Cann · 392 So. 2d 381 - State v. Cann · State v. Cann
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 214 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““The Court has considered the sentence in accordance with Code of Criminal Procedure Article 894.1 and finds as follows: The defendant’s conduct in this case caused permanent harm, both to the victim and her mother. It cannot be said in such a case that the defendant did not contemplate that his conduct would cause serious harm or act [sic] on the strong provocation; nor can it be said that the victim induced or facilitated the commission of the crime or that it can be excused or justified in any manner. The defendant has no apparent criminal record, but it cannot be said that his criminal conduct was a result of circumstances unlikely to occur [sic]. Probation is simply not appropriate to a crime of this magnitude. In view of the foregoing, a lesser sentence than that which is about to be imposed would deprecate the seriousness of the defendant’s crime. It is, therefore, the sentence of this Court that the defendant, William Brock, serve ten years at hard labor in the custody of the Department of Corrections”.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Brock“(1) while a trial judge must consider the Guidelines, he has complete discretion to reject the Guidelines and impose any sentence which is not constitutionally excessive, but is within the statutory sentencing range for the crime of which a defendant has been convicted, so long as he states for the record the considerations taken into account and the factual basis for his imposition of that sentence, La.Code Cr.P. art. 894.1; and (2) where the trial judge has considered the Guidelines and imposed a sentence, adequately stating for the record the considerations taken into account and the factual basis for imposition of that sentence, an appellate court is limited to a review of the sentence imposed for constitutional excessiveness, without regard as to whether the trial judge either employed or deviated from the Guidelines.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Brown“For a sentence to be found excessive, it must be 'so grossly disproportionate to the crime committed, in light of the harm caused to society, as to shock our sense of justice.'”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Trung Le
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.