480 So. 2d 32 - Riley v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

3 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 3 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “"The Solem v. Helm rule applies to cases in which the sentence is life imprisonment without parole. Its disproportionality argument was addressed by our Supreme Court in Ex parte Harbor, 465 So.2d 460 (Ala.1985), where the Court stated: " "We cannot agree with the petitioner’s argument that the Supreme Court of the United States in Solem v. Helm, 463 U.S. 277 , 103 S.Ct. 3001 [ 77 L.Ed.2d 637 ] (1983), required appellate courts test all sentences against the proscription of the cruel and unusual punishment clause of the Eighth Amendment to the Constitution.* “The mere fact that punishment may be severe does not make it cruel and unusual punishment. Rummell v. Estelle, 445 U.S. 263 , 100 S.Ct. 1133 , 63 L.Ed.2d 382 (1980)." Riley v. State, 480 So.2d 32, 33 (Ala.Cr.App.1985).”

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

2. ““The sentence imposed by the trial judge in the case sub judice is within the range of punishment authorized by statute, and we deem it inappropriate to substitute our judgment for that of the trial court as to the punishment the appellant-defendant should receive. To do so would constitute an unwarranted invasion by an appellate court of the province of the trial court. As long as the sentence imposed by the trial court is within statutory boundaries, the Court of Criminal Appeals will not overturn the decision absent clear abuse.” (Citation omitted.)”

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