59 Md. App. 383 - Oliver v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

5 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 5 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “(a) Suspension of sentence; probation.—Upon entering a judgment of conviction, the court having jurisdiction may suspend the imposition or execution of sentence and place the defendant on probation upon such terms and conditions as the court deems proper. The court may impose a sentence for a specified period and provide that a lesser period be served in confinement, suspend the remainder of the sentence and grant probation for a period longer than the sentence but not in excess of 5 years. However, if the defendant consents in writing, the court may grant probation in excess of 5 years, but only for purposes of making restitution. (b) Probation when offense punishable by fine and imprisonment; limitation, revocation or modification.—Probation may be granted whether the offense is punishable by fine or imprisonment or both. If the offense is punishable by both fine and imprisonment, the court may impose a fine and place the defendant on probation as to the imprisonment. Probation may be limited to one or more counts or indictments, but, in the absence of express limitation, shall extend to the entire sentence and judgment. The court may revoke or modify any condition of probation or may reduce the period of probation. (c) Commencement of probation on date of release as a condition.—If a sentence of imprisonment is imposed, a portion of it is suspended, and the defendant is placed on probation, the court may impose as a condition of probation that the probation commence on the”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Oliver · 62 Md. App. 296 - Christian v. State

2. “Even if the legislative intent were unclear the rule of lenity requires that courts not interpret criminal statutes so as to increase the penalty placed upon an individual where the result occurs from a less than specific declaration of the legislative intent. Whack v. State, 288 Md. 137 , 416 A.2d 265 (1980); Johnson v. State, 56 Md.App. 205 , 467 A.2d 544 (1983). Oliver, 59 Md.App. at 389 , 475 A.2d 1230 .”

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