673 So. 2d 812 - Rolling v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1995
Citation profile
50 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 50 later decisions — most recently September 2017 · most notably 766 So. 2d 143 - Ex Parte Rice (1999), 973 So. 2d 380 - Brooks v. State (2007)
50 state decisions
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
Relationships
Relies on North Carolina v. Pearce · Ball v. United States · Messerschmidt v. United States · Coral v. State · 42 Ala. App. 357 - Wildman 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 50 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“"The judgment of the Court of Criminal Appeals is reversed and the case is remanded for further proceedings *Page 1111 consistent with this opinion. We note that merely ordering that Rice's sentences run concurrently is not a constitutionally acceptable option. The Supreme Court stated in Ball v. United States , 470 U.S. 856 , 864-65 , 105 S.Ct. 1668 , 84 L.Ed.2d 740 (1985): "`The remedy of ordering one of the sentences to be served concurrently with the other cannot be squared with Congress' intention. One of the convictions, as well as its concurrent sentence, is unauthorized punishment for a separate offense. See Missouri v. Hunter , 459 U.S. 359 , 368 [, 103 S.Ct. 673 , 74 L.Ed.2d 535 ] (1983). "`The second conviction, whose concomitant sentence is served concurrently, does not evaporate simply because of the concurrence of the sentence. The separate conviction , apart from the concurrent sentence, has potential adverse collateral consequences that may not be ignored. For example, the presence of two convictions on the record may delay the defendant's eligibility for parole or result in an increased sentence under a recidivist statute for a future offense. Moreover, the second conviction may be used to impeach the defendant's credibility and certainly carries the societal stigma accompanying any criminal conviction. See Benton v. Maryland , 395 U.S. 784 , 790-91 [, 89 S.Ct. 2056 , 23 L.Ed.2d 707 ] (1969); Sibron v. New York , 392 U.S. 40 , 54-56 [, 88 S.Ct. 1889 , 20 L.Ed”
6 later decisions quote this exact passage“`(1) One offense is included in the other, as defined in Section 13A-1-9 .'”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“'Based on the above discussion, the trial court's judgment finding Rolling guilty of both crimes was error. We hold that, particularly pursuant to § 13A-1-8(b)(1), the court was without jurisdiction to adjudge Rolling guilty of manslaughter.'”
2 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Stoves v. State · Straughn 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.