United States v. Henry’s Empirical Analysis
680 F.2d 403 · 1982
Citation profile
14 federal appellate · 1 district · 8 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 24 later decisions — most recently November 2010
14 federal appellate · 1 district · 8 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
Applies 18 U.S.C. § 111 (Federal Judiciary Protection Act of 2002) · 18 U.S.C. § 1114 · 18 U.S.C. § 2 · 18 U.S.C. § 2113 · 18 U.S.C. § 371 · 18 U.S.C. § 924 · 26 U.S.C. § 5861 (§ 201 of the Gun Control Act of 1968) · 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)
Relies on North Carolina v. Pearce · Blackledge v. Perry · United States v. DiFrancesco · United States v. Addonizio · Ex parte Lange
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 24 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““Rule 35 on its face would appear to be enacted for the benefit of the defendants— the correction or reduction of sentences. However, the correction of an illegal sentence does not necessarily mean that the correction will always result in a reduction of a sentence for a defendant. Where the court has imposed a sentence less than the statutory minimum, Rule 35 allows the court to bring the defendant back into court and increase the sentence.... It is clear then that Rule 35 does not exist solely for the benefit of the defendant. Instead, it balances the scales of justice.””
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. State v. Fraser · State v. Wika“In sum, our examination of DiFrancesco leads us to conclude that it stands for the proposition that the double jeopardy clause does not provide an absolute bar to increasing a defendant's sentence. Any prior holdings to the contrary are overruled. We further conclude in this case that the double jeopardy clause was not violated where the increase occurred in the correction of an illegal sentence. ... . The lower court had the authority under Rule 35 to vacate the illegal sentence on Counts II and III and impose a new consecutive sentence on Count II. The sentences on these two counts were interdependent, and if one was illegal, both sentences were illegal. In correcting the sentence on Count II from a concurrent term of years to a consecutive term of years, the double jeopardy clause was not violated. The correction of an illegal sentence does not involve double jeopardy rights. Furthermore, there is nothing inherent in the double jeopardy clause which prevents the increase of a sentence in the district court, even if the sentence is legal. The judgment of the lower court is AFFIRMED. ( 680 F.2d at 411-12 ).”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Williams v. State“The court may correct an illegal sentence at any time and may correct a sentence imposed in an illegal manner within the time provided herein for the reduction of sentence.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
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.