Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 639 So. 2d 458 - State v. Gaines

639 So. 2d 458 - State v. Gaines’s Empirical Analysis

1994

Citation profile

5
cited by 5 later decisions
1
states following
March 2011
most recently cited

5 state decisions

Relationships

Relies on 572 So. 2d 1166 - State v. Greer · 352 So. 2d 223 - State Ex Rel. Clark v. Marullo · State v. Broussard · Bernard v. FIRESIDE COMMERCIAL LIFE INS. CO., INC. · 475 So. 2d 791 - State v. Lambert

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. “... Relying on State v. Williams, 609 So.2d 993 (La.App. 5th Cir.1992), writ denied, 613 So.2d 992 (La.1993), defendant argues that the state cannot `piggyback' felony convictions in order to avoid the five-year cleansing period. In State v. Williams, 609 So.2d at 995, n. 1 , our brethren of the Fifth Circuit stated that `La.R.S. 15:529.1(C) prohibits the use of a conviction where more than five years have elapsed between the expiration of the maximum sentence on the prior conviction and the commission of the present offense.' When read in connection with facts discussed in the court's earlier opinion in the same case, State v. Williams, 580 So.2d 448 (La.App. 5th Cir.1991), the Fifth Circuit appears to hold that, in order to use the predicate offense for enhancement, the expiration of the maximum sentence of each of the predicate felony convictions must be within five years prior to commission of the instant offense which is being enhanced. (The Williams court did not discuss the possibility that time spent in custody as a result of subsequent convictions should be excluded from that five-year time period.) The court in Williams, 609 So.2d at 995, n. 1 , cited State v. Montana, 332 So.2d 248 (La.1976) as its authority. In Montana , the supreme court implied that, if the expiration of the maximum sentence for any of the prior convictions has elapsed more than five years prior to the instant offense, then the prior conviction cannot be used to enhance the instant sentence. Sta”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “C. This Section shall not be applicable in cases where more than five years have elapsed since the expiration of the maximum sentence, or sentences, of the previous conviction, or convictions, and the time of the commission of the last felony for which he has been convicted. In computing the period of time as provided herein, any period of servitude by a person in a penal institution, within or without the state, shall not be included in the computation of any of said five year periods.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage

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.