State v. Rome’s Empirical Analysis
1997
Citation profile
1 federal appellate · 26 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 27 later decisions — most recently March 2018 · most notably State v. Williams (2001), 951 So. 2d 124 - State v. Dick (2007)
1 federal appellate · 26 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 State v. Dorthey · State v. Johnson · 406 So. 2d 1300 - State v. LeCompte · 378 So. 2d 423 - SINGER HUNTER LEVINE, ETC. v. La. State Bar Ass'n · 479 So. 2d 339 - State v. Taylor
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 27 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“One of the traditional, inherent and exclusive powers of the judiciary is the power to sentence. State v. LeCompte , 406 So.2d 1300 , 1311 (La.1981) (on rehearing). After a defendant is convicted of a crime, the determination of his sentence is within the sound discretion of the trial judge. State v. Jackson , 298 So.2d 777 , 780 (La.1974). However, the trial judge's sentencing discretion is not unbridled, as the legislative branch of government is free to decide what constitutes a crime as well as "what punishments shall be meted out by a court after the judicial ascertainment of guilt." State v. Normand , 285 So.2d 210 , 211 (La.1973). Therefore, the fixing of penalties is purely a legislative function, but the trial judge has the discretion to determine the appropriate sentence within the sentencing range fixed by the legislature.”
8 later decisions quote this exact passage“A. Notwithstanding any other provision of law to the contrary, a defendant may be sentenced to home incarceration in lieu of imprisonment under the following conditions: (1) The defendant is eligible for probation or was convicted of a misdemeanor or a felony punishable with or without hard labor. |a(2) In felony cases, the Department of Public Safety and Corrections, through the division of probation and parole, recommends home incarceration of the defendant and specific conditions of that home incarceration. (3) The court determines that home incarceration of the defendant is more suitable than imprisonment or supervised probation without home incarceration.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“The legislature, pursuant to its power to determine the appropriate punishment for crimes classified as felonies, enacted this special provision which allows the trial judge to sentence a defendant to home incarceration in lieu of imprisonment, even though the statute the defendant was convicted under requires the defendant be sentenced to a term of imprisonment without benefit of probation, parole, or suspension of sentence. However, before the trial judge may sentence a defendant to home incarceration in lieu of a traditional corrections facility, the defendant must satisfy all of the criteria established by La.C.Cr.P. art. 894.2.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
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.