State v. Martin’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

8 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 8 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “[W]e find that retroactivity analysis is not applicable when it is determined by a court that a constitutional error affects the defendant's criminal history score resulting in an illegal sentence. The legislative directive in K.S.A. 22-3504(1) allows courts to correct an illegal sentence at any time. Thus, we conclude that a claim under Dickey [II] may be brought by a defendant in a motion to correct illegal sentence even when the time for direct appeal has passed and the defendant's sentence is final.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Thomas · State v. Vasquez

2. “Apprendi was the basis for the ultimate holding in Dickey. Descamps provided a means by which to determine whether certain sentencing determinations violated Apprendi, and Dickey applied that framework to Kansas criminal history determinations. [Citations omitted.]”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Thomas · State v. Gales

3. “[C]lassifying Dickey's prior burglary adjudication as a person felony violates his constitutional rights as described under Descamps and Apprendi.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Thomas · State v. Gales