Day v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1990
Citation profile
30 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 31 later decisions — most recently March 2019 · most notably Saylor v. State (2002), Davenport v. State (1997)
30 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 Maldonado v. State · Jordan v. State · Evans v. State · Blevins v. State · Simms v. State
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 31 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“In sentencing Day, the trial court relied on prior convictions and listed all Day's adult convictions and the "various offenses ... disposed of ... while you were a juvenile" and declared that these all involved sexual violence against females. While it is possible that the sentencing judge knew about these juvenile offenses because he presided over them, the presentence report and the rest of the record before the trial court neither revealed any facts about the events constituting Day's juvenile history nor demonstrated any adjudications. The trial court's reliance on the available juvenile record was error. The details of criminal activity may be used to demonstrate a history of criminal activity when a juvenile court has determined that those acts were committed. When a juvenile proceeding ends without a disposition, the mere fact that a petition was filed alleging delinquency does not suffice as proof of a criminal history. Indeed, even when a juvenile court has made a determination of delinquency, only the acts committed by the juvenile may constitute a criminal history to support enhancement of a sentence. An adjudication of delinquency is not a fact that can be used by a sentencing court to enhance a criminal sentence. Concurring in denial of rehearing I emphasized that the adjudication does play an important role in establishing a history of criminal behavior as a juvenile: The adjudication indicates that the history is correct. It elevates that history from allegati”
7 later decisions quote this exact passage“can identify sufficient aggravating cireumstances to persuade it that the trial court would have entered the same sentence even absent the impermissible factor, it should affirm the trial court's decision.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Scheckel v. State · Means v. State““[a] sentence supported by permissible grounds sufficient to persuade the reviewing court that the original sentencing decision would have been the same had the trial court not relied on the impermissible factor should be affirmed.””
2 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Angleton v. State · Shoup 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.