Bartruff v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

14 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 14 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “Since [contemporaneous sentencing] is not the case here, only the mandatory provisions of sub-section [IC 35-50-1-2] (b) could apply, and this record does not supply a basis for the conclusion that it does apply. Consequently, the cause must be remanded to the trial court with instructions to specify the legal authority and justification for the consecutive sentence order or, in the alternative, drop it.”

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

2. “for a statement justifying application of the mandatory provision of the consecutive sentencing statute or for a modification of the sentencing order deleting the requirement of consecutive sentences.”

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

3. “limited to situations in which the trial court is contemporaneously imposing the two sentences to be served consecutively.”

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