56 So. 3d 408 - State v. Vincent’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

12 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 12 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “[T]he Louisiana Constitution of 1974 does not require that the District Attorney institute proceedings by a bill of indictment where the maximum penalty for the charge is less than life imprisonment. The constitution mandates that prosecution of felonies be initiated by indictment or information applies only to the substantive crime for which the accused is charged. La. Const.1974, art. I, § 15; La.C.Cr.P. art. 382. In State v. Alexander, 325 So.2d 777, 779 (La.1976), quoting State v. Jackson, 298 So.2d 777 (La.1974), the Court reasoned that the “(bill of) information [charging the defendant as a multiple offender] does not charge a crime but is merely the method of informing the sentencing court of the circumstances and requesting an enhancement of penalty.” Thus, the enhanced penalty proceeding does not charge the defendant with a crime; consequently no indictment is necessary. Id. Moreover, the charging instrument is dependent upon the classification of the substantive crime charged, not the enhanced penalty to which an individual may be subject upon conviction. Id. In State v. Tassin, 08-0752, p. 9 (La.App. 3 Cir. 11 /5/08), 998 So.2d 278, 285 , writ denied 08-2909 (La.9/18/09), 17 So.3d 385 , the defendant asserted that the State v. Alexander needed to be reconsidered in light of U.S. v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 [ 125 S.Ct. 738 , 160 L.Ed.2d 621 ] (2005). The court reasoned that Booker was not applicable because it did not address a recidivism statute. Id. at 238 [ 125 S.Ct.”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 126 So. 3d 770 - State v. Diggins · 70 So. 3d 1061 - State v. Landfair

2. “Next, Vincent argues that he was entitled to a jury trial on the issue of his multiple offender status. He suggests that the multiple offender statute violates the Fourteenth and the Sixth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution. He relies upon the United States Supreme Court cases Jones v. United States, 526 U.S. 227 , 119 S.Ct. 1215 , 143 L.Ed.2d 311 (1999); Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 , 120 S.Ct. 2348 , 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000); Ring v. Arizona, 536 U.S. 584 , 122 S.Ct. 2428 , 153 L.Ed.2d 556 (2002); and Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296 , 124 S.Ct. 2531 , 159 L.Ed.2d 403 (2004). | nThis court has determined that no constitutional right to a jury trial exists in multiple bill proceedings because all of the elements necessary to enhance the sentence “can be determined by reviewing the documents submitted in support of the multiple bill of information.” State v. Smith, 05-0375 pp. 3-5, (La.App. 4 Cir. 7/20/05), 913 So.2d 836, 839 , citing Apprendi, supra. We find no merit to this claim.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 122 So. 3d 1164 - State v. Hackett

3. “[t]his Court has determined that no constitutional right to a jury trial exists in multiple bill proceedings because all of the elements necessary to enhance the sentence 'can be determined by reviewing the documents submitted in support of the multiple bill of information.'”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 245 So. 3d 15 - State v. Brazell