Montes v. Trombley’s Empirical Analysis
599 F.3d 490 · 2010
Citation profile
1 federal appellate ·
Relationships
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)
Relies on Apprendi v. New Jersey · Blakely v. Washington · Williams v. Taylor · Harris v. United States · Cunningham v. California
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.
“A sentencing court scores the OV’s only to calculate the recommended range for the minimum portion of the defendant’s sentence, not to arrive at the defendant’s maximum sentence, which is set by statute. The conditional limit on incarceration contained in MCL 769.34(4)(a) an intermediate sanction does not establish the defendant’s statutorily required maximum sentence authorized by the jury’s verdict or the guilty plea, but is instead a matter of legislative leniency, giving a defendant the opportunity to be incarcerated for a period that is less than that authorized by the jury’s verdict or the guilty plea.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
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.