State v. Conger’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

4 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 4 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “Subsection C of Art. 894.1 provides that the `court shall state for the record the considerations taken into account and the factual basis therefor in imposing sentence.' In the case at bar the judge states that the sentence was imposed under Art. 894.1 A, (1), (2) and (3). However, he did not specifically enumerate for the record the factors he considered and the basis for imposing sentence as mandated by Art. 894.1 C. In State v. Smith, 430 So.2d 31 (La. 1983), the Supreme Court analysed a situation similar to the case at bar and held: (t)he trial court's failure to comply with art. 894.1 does not, in and of itself, render a sentence invalid. We will uphold the sentence if the record cleary illumines the sentencing choice. [Cite omitted] The record must reflect that the sentence is not excessive. 430 So.2d at 46 .”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 544 So. 2d 444 - State v. Robinson

2. “reflect[s] that the sentence is not excessive.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 543 So. 2d 585 - State v. Talbert