50 Va. App. 173 - Lilly v. Commonwealth’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

18 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 20 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “[the legislature has] produced a floor below which no judge or jury [can] go. A trial court’s authority to depart downward below a mandatory minimum is “nonexistent,” Mouberry v. Commonwealth, 39 Va.App. 576, 585 , 575 S.E.2d 567 , 571 (2003), because the legislative purpose was to divest trial judges and juries of “all discretion” to sentence below the threshold minimum, In re Commonwealth of Virginia, 229 Va. 159, 163 , 326 S.E.2d 695, 697 (1985).”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 56 Va. App. 244 - Johnson v. Commonwealth · 63 Va. App. 561 - Commonwealth of Virginia v. Rayshawn Torrell Greer

2. “American juries ... exercised little, if any, discretionary control over criminal sentences.... The historic norm for the jury was to determine only guilt or innocence, leaving the court alone to fix the punishment consistent with legislatively mandated sentences. Later statutory reforms produced ... sentencing ranges within which trial judges could exercise ... discretion. Some states, like Virginia, authorized juries to ascertain a specific felony sentence within the statutory range, subject to the trial court’s power of suspension.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 56 Va. App. 244 - Johnson v. Commonwealth · 63 Va. App. 561 - Commonwealth of Virginia v. Rayshawn Torrell Greer

3. “Effective July 1, 1999, the General Assembly repealed the then-current method of declaring a driver to be an habitual offender. Under that process, the Division of Motor Vehicles would make such a declaration in a civil administrative proceeding subject to judicial review. The General Assembly, however, did not repeal the criminal provision prohibiting previously declared habitual offenders from driving [i.e., Code § 46.2-357].”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 59 Va. App. 496 - Warren Anthony Thomas v. Commonwealth of Virginia