Allen v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1988
Citation profile
19 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 19 later decisions — most recently September 2014
19 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 Starnes v. Penrod Drilling Co. · State v. Goodson · United States v. Ortiz · 415 So. 2d 1169 - Ex Parte Jackson · 476 So. 2d 1281 - State v. Milbry
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 19 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(2) In lieu of other criminal penalties authorized by law and notwithstanding any imposition of consecutive sentences, the court shall dispose of the criminal case as follows: * * * * * * (c) The court may impose a split sentence whereby the youthful offender is to be placed on probation or community control upon completion of any specified period of incarceration; however, if the incarceration period is to be served in a department facility other than a probation and restitution center or community residential facility, such period shall be for not less than 1 year or more than 4 years. The period of probation or community control shall commence immediately upon the release of the youthful offender from incarceration. The period of incarceration imposed or served and the period of probation or community control, when added together, shall not exceed 6 years.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“[h]ence, imposition of consecutive sentences resulting in a total commitment of more than six years would thwart the purpose of the Act.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“on each sentence, albeit to run concurrently, the sentences were technically excessive. Section 958.04(2)(d), Florida Statutes says: The court may commit the youthful offender to the custody of the department for a period of not more than 6 years, provided that any such commitment shall not exceed the maximum sentence for the offense for which the youthful offender has been convicted. [emphasis supplied]. The sentencing court can impose virtually the same punishment by giving appellant consecutive sentences, neither of which exceeds the”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Nguyen v. State
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.