Marts v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1985
Citation profile
10 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 10 later decisions — most recently September 2018
10 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 Thompson v. State · Marts v. State · Frasier v. State · Richardson v. State · 162 Ind. App. 649 - Gross v. State
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 10 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The precise issue, i.e. whether his sentence constituted cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the State and Federal Constitutions, regardless of how it is now phrased, was presented to this Court and determined adversely to his position in his direct appeal. Hence, the issue was not reviewable in a subsequent post-conviction proceeding.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“Not only was the post-conviction court not required to modify the sentence, it was not empowered to do so.... [This Court had previously determined that the sentence was not unconstitutional, ... hence, [Marts] is clearly requesting a modification, not a correction, of his sentence. Ind.Code § 35-38-1-17 (Burns 1985) provides for the modification of sentences, in pertinent part, as follows: "The court, within one hundred eighty (180) days after it imposes a sentence, ... may reduce or suspend the sentence, incorporating its reasons in the record." In State ex rel. Abel v. Vigo Cir. Ct. (1984), Ind. 462 N.E.2d 61, 63 , this Court held that "upon the expiration of the 180-days notwithstanding any petitions filed by the defendant, the court loses further jurisdiction over the defendant so far as the alteration of his sentence is concerned."”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Fulkrod“In the case at bar, however, this Court had previously determined that the sentence was not unconstitutional, Marts v. State , 432 N.E.2d [18, 22 (Ind. 1982) ], the only ground upon which Petitioner claims error; hence, he is clearly requesting a modification, not a correction, of his sentence.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
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.