658 So. 2d 1249 - Williams v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1995
Citation profile
5
cited by 5 later decisions
1
states following
January 2006
most recently cited
5 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on 576 So. 2d 281 - State v. Williams · 565 So. 2d 328 - Erickson v. State · Dawson v. State
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.
“As defendant contended to the trial court and repeats now on appeal, the kind of entry used here to lump several separate convictions together effectively deprives him of the ability to challenge the accuracy of the calculations. Without the specificity we find lacking, we are unable to discern which entries in his criminal history may be scored. See Fla. R.Crim. P. 3.702(d)(8)(E). This scoresheet is not saved merely because the presentence investigation report details the misdemeanor convictions. It is the scoresheet that controls the guidelines calculations, and not the report.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Cobb v. State
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.