611 So. 2d 487 - Burks v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

15 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 15 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “"In addition to any penalties heretofore or hereafter provided by law for any person convicted of an unlawful sale of a controlled substance, there is hereby imposed a penalty of five years incarceration in a state corrections facility with no provision for probation if the situs of such unlawful sale was on the campus or within a three-mile radius of the campus boundaries of any public or private school, college, university or other educational institution in this state."”

   4 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Broaden v. State · 629 So. 2d 693 - Cunny v. State

2. “"The appellant next raises several issues concerning the enhancement of his sentence under both § 13A-12-250 , Code of Alabama 1975, which imposes a penalty of five years in addition to any [other] penalty for selling a controlled substance within a three-mile radius of a school campus and *Page 351 § 13A-12-270 , Code of Alabama 1975, which imposes an additional penalty of five years for selling a controlled substance within a three-mile radius of a public housing project. The appellant argues that, because §§ 13A-12-250 and 13A-12-270 refer to the 'unlawful sale of a controlled substance,' they do not apply to him because he acted merely as a 'procuring agent,' instead of a seller of a controlled substance. The appellant also argues that §§ 13A-12-250 and 13A-12-270 refer only to sales of controlled substances, but not to other kinds of distributions of illegal drugs. We disagree with both contentions. "In Qualls v. State , 555 So.2d 1158 (Ala.Cr.App. 1989), this court broadly construed § 13A-12-250 to create a drug-free safety zone around schools: 'We . . . believe that the legislature, by enacting Alabama's "schoolyard statute," intended to create an around-the-clock drug-free atmosphere on or near school grounds. . . . [W]e believe that the legislature clearly intended to protect these areas, as well as the school grounds, from the evils associated with drug activities at all times.' 555 So.2d 1158 , 1165 [emphasis supplied in Burks ]. Whether the appellant is characteri”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 658 So. 2d 347 - Ex Parte Mutrie

3. “However, even had the legislature intended to exclude `procuring agents' or other types of drug traffickers from the application of §§ 13A-12-250 and 13A-12-270, those sections would still apply in this case because the appellant's activity with Dean was clearly a sale of a controlled substance. [Emphasis in Burks. ] In Qualls [ v. State, 555 So.2d 1158 (Ala.Cr. App.1989)], a drug transaction identical in substance to the transaction in this case was ruled a sale. In that case, Claude Cosey, an undercover investigator, was asked by Qualls if he was interested in buying marijuana. Cosey gave Qualls $30 and waited in a Tom Thumb convenience store parking lot. Soon after, Qualls returned with a bag of plant material, which was later determined to be marijuana. Qualls, 555 So.2d at 1159 . See also, Smith v. State, 589 So.2d 798 (Ala.Crim.App. 1991). "The appellant in this case solicited the informant, took the marked money, and then returned with the marijuana, exactly as Qualls had done. In Qualls , this court found that the schoolyard statute, § 13A-12-250, was properly applied to Qualls. The fact that the evidence did not show where Qualls went to get the marijuana she delivered to Cosey was not relevant. Likewise, the trial judge in this case correctly rejected the appellant's `procuring agent' defense.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 658 So. 2d 347 - Ex Parte Mutrie