Hartley v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

35 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 35 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “[T]he legislature has established specific guidelines governing sentencing. These guidelines are particularly important in determining presumptive sentences for those previously convicted of felonies. The [legislature's] decision to cireumseribe sentencing discretion was in large part based upon a legislative belief that greater uniformity in sentencing should be sought and unjustified disparity ° eliminated. AS 12.55.005. To allow the parties to ignore past convictions or aggravating and mitigating factors suggested by the evidence at trial or disclosed in the presentence report ... would be to encourage unjustified disparity in sentencing. We therefore hold that the state has no discretion to suppress evi-denee of past convictions or aggravating or mitigating factors.... We [also] therefore conclude that the trial court has the power sua sponte to alert the parties to possible aggravating and mitigating factors present in the record[,] so long as the parties are given an opportunity to marshal the relevant evidence, pro and con, and make their arguments accordingly.”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Gilley v. State · State v. District Court