698 So. 2d 817 - Wike v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

22 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 24 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “[t]he basic premise of sentencing procedure is that the sentencer is to consider all relevant evidence regarding the nature of the crime and the character of the defendant to determine appropriate punishment.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 770 So. 2d 1119 - Kearse v. State · 985 So. 2d 985 - State v. Collins

2. “In following that recommendation, the trial judge found four aggravating circumstances: prior violent felonies (1974 robbery, and contemporaneous attempted murder, kidnaping, and sexual battery of Sayeh); committed to avoid arrest; heinous, atrocious, or cruel (HAC); and cold, calculated, and premeditated (CCP). Additionally, the judge gave little or no weight to the statutory mitigating circumstance of age (Wike was 32 at the time of the murder). He also considered a number of nonstatutory mitigating circumstances. [Note 1.] [Note 1.] The nonstatutory mitigating circumstances considered by the trial judge are as follows: Troubled childhood (little weight), mental and emotional disturbance due to father's death and troubled life (little weight), history of alcohol and drug abuse (some weight), under the influence of drugs and alcohol at time of crime (little weight because not corroborated by witnesses who observed Wike just after the crime), gainfully employed (little weight), serving life for sexual battery of Sayeh and able to serve life for this crime (some weight), has behaved well in prison and not likely to be dangerous in the future (little or no weight), and Wike has maintained his innocence (little or no weight).”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 813 So. 2d 12 - Wike v. State

3. “when conflict between a defendant and the defendant's counsel is attributable solely to the defendant's own contumacious behavior and not to any competing interest of counsel, a defendant has not been denied the right to counsel due to such conflict of interest.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 983 So. 2d 464 - Doorbal v. State