66 So. 3d 619 - State v. Compton’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

6 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 6 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “Louisiana Code of Criminal Procedure Article 881.1(E) requires a defendant to set forth the specific grounds on which a motion to reconsider may be based. Failure to include a specific ground upon which a motion to reconsider sentence may be based “shall preclude ... the defendant from raising an objection to the sentence or from urging any ground not raised in the motion on appeal or review.” In the present case, although the defendant generally raised the issue of excessiveness in his motion to reconsider sentence, he failed to specifically allege that the trial court failed to consider the factors of La.Code Crim.P. art. 894.1. Accordingly, because that claim was not specifically set forth in his motion to reconsider, it cannot be reviewed in this appeal, ... and our review of the defendant’s sentence is restricted to his bare claim of excessiveness.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 114 So. 3d 670 - State v. Miller

2. “[i]f the defendant is convicted of two or more offenses ... constituting parts of a common scheme or plan, the terms of imprisonment shall be served concurrently unless the court expressly directs that some or all be served consecutively.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 256 So. 3d 345 - State v. Bench

3. “The factors to consider when imposing consecutive sentences include defendant's criminal record, the severity or violent nature of the offenses, or the danger the defendant poses to the public.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 256 So. 3d 345 - State v. Bench