536 So. 2d 430 - State v. Melancon’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

26 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 27 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “C. Diminution of sentence shall not be allowed an inmate in the custody of the Department of Corrections if: (1) The inmate has been convicted one or more times under the laws of this state of any one or more of the following crimes: [[Image here]] (j) Simple burglary. ⅜ ⅜ ⅝ * ⅜ * (q) A violation of the Louisiana Controlled Dangerous Substances Law which is a felony; or (r) Any felony which is defined as an attempt to commit one of the crimes enumerated in (a) through (q) herein, and (3) The inmate’s last conviction for the purposes of the Habitual Offender Law, was for a crime: (a) Committed during the period beginning September 16, 1975 through September 9, 1977, inclusive of both dates, and the sentence of the court specifically denies eligibility for diminution of sentence, or (b) committed on or after September 10, 1977. [Emphasis added.]”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 573 So. 2d 1253 - State v. Parker · 679 So. 2d 472 - State v. Brantley

2. “8. GOOD TIME INELIGIBILITY: Good time shall not be awarded to an inmate in the custody of the Department as outlined below: 1SA. The inmate has been sentenced on the instant offense under the Habitual Offender Law as set forth in R.S. 15:529.1, and also meets all of the criteria as set forth in R.S. 15:571.3C. 1) Any prior or instant conviction listed in R.S. 15:571.3C1 (a) through (r) shall be used to meet the criteria as set forth in this section.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 740 So. 2d 671 - Spellman v. Stalder · State v. Smith

3. “Even though defendant is not eligible to earn good time credits, it appears that the trial court erred by expressly denying this eligibility because the court had no authority to award or deny good time. Although it would appear that this prohibition is mere surplusage, one can envision a scenario where this prohibition could harm the defendant. If a sentence is ordered to be served without good time eligibility and R.S. 15:571.3 C is ever amended to allow good time eligibility in instances where it is presently prohibited under that statute, it would seem that any defendant so sentenced would still be ineligible for good time credits. Thus, the trial court’s prohibition against good time should be deleted. Because the defendant falls within the statute’s provisions, however, D.O.C. must deny him eligibility for good time credits. Id., 536 So.2d at 434 .”

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