Fielding v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1986
Citation profile
36 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 36 later decisions — most recently April 2015 · most notably State v. Gonzalez (1993), Reyes v. State (1993)
36 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.
Appellate journey
reviewedthe decision below (from Texas 292nd Judicial District Court)
Relationships
Relies on Johnson v. Zerbst · Morrissey v. Brewer · Gagnon v. Scarpelli · Williams v. People of State of New York · Tumey v. State of Ohio
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 36 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“1. it effectively excluded evidence relevant to punishment, specifically, the evidence of appellant’s rehabilitation while on probation; 2. it precluded the judge from considering the full range of punishment prescribed by law; and 3. it deprived the defendant of a fair and impartial tribunal at the punishment hearing.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissente.g. Burke v. State · Howard v. State“When the judge assesses punishment, he should be no less open to consideration of the full range of punishment in the light of the relevant evidence (citing McClenan, supra). The judge abuses his discretion if he rigidly imposes a maximum sentence and refuses to consider evidence that he is required to receive and weigh (citing United States v. Long, 656 F.2d 1162, 1165 (5th Cir.1981).”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissente.g. Howard v. State“Nevertheless, the sentencing process is subject to appellate scrutiny, (citations omitted). My concern here is not the excessiveness of the sentence, but the fairness of the procedure adopted by the judge in determining the sentence.... when the judge is unwilling to consider the full range of punishment ...”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissente.g. Howard 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.