720 So. 2d 732 - State v. Gobert’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

2 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 2 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “Further, we find this case unlike that encountered in State v. Jordan, 98-101 (La.App. 3 Cir. 6/3/98) ; 716 So.2d 36 , wherein we determined that, since the statute did not clearly indicate that review was prohibited, the sentence should be reviewed in the interest of justice. As here, the defendant in Jordan entered a guilty plea to a reduced charge, thereby reducing his sentence exposure. However, in that case, unlike here, part of the plea agreement was that the parties would jointly recommend a specific sentence, three years. Despite the recommendation, the trial court imposed a seven-year sentence, the statutory maximum available for the charge. Thus, it was unclear whether the defendant had been sentenced in accordance with the plea agreement. We find that, in the instant matter, the defendant was clearly sentenced in conformity with the plea agreement. Therefore, review is precluded by La.Code Crim.P. art. 881.2(A)(2).”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 741 So. 2d 696 - State v. Pickens

2. “We conclude that the instant matter is analogous to that presented in Watkins, 97-364, 700 So.2d 1172 . Here, the defendant clearly benefitted from a reduction of his sentencing exposure from sixty years to ten years. Furthermore, the plea agreement form signed by the defendant and entered into the record specifies that the defendant could be sentenced up to ten years and, further, that a presentence investigation was ordered. Therefore, as in Watkins, we find that the defendant entered into the plea agreement knowing that he could receive up to ten years imprisonment. Although a statutory maximum, the ten-year limit operated as a specific cap in this instance.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 741 So. 2d 696 - State v. Pickens

3. “As in Goodman , no specific sentence or sentencing range was recommended by the parties in Watkins. However, in Watkins, the court found that review was precluded since the defendant clearly recognized that the statutory maximum penalty was the most he could receive and understood that this acted as a cap.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 741 So. 2d 696 - State v. Pickens