Ratliff v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

18 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 18 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “(b) As used in this section, "episode of criminal conduct" means offenses or a conmected series of offenses that are closely related in time, place or cireum-stance. (e) Exeept as provided in subsection (d) or (e), the court shall determine whether terms of imprisonment shall be served concurrently or consecutively. The court may consider the aggravating and mitigating cireumstances in Ind.Code 35-38-1-7.1(b) and Ind.Code 35-38-1-7.1(c) in making a determination under this subsection. The court may order terms of imprisonment to be served consecutively even if the sentences are not imposed at the same time. However, except for crimes of violence, the total of the consecutive terms of imprisonment, exclusive of terms of imprisonment under Ind.Code 35-50-%-8 and Ind.Code 35-50-2-10, to which the defendant is sentenced for felony convictions arising out of an episode of criminal conduct shall not exceed the presumptive sentence for a felony which is one (1) class of felony higher than the most serious of the felonies for which the person has been convicted.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Massey v. State · Schlichter v. State

2. “Judge Mathias’ dissent to be the more appropriate way to resolve the issue. In his dissent Judge Mathias noted that Ratliffs possession of marijuana was directly and inextricably connected to the other offenses, as it occurred at the same time and place as the other offenses and would have never been discovered had Ratliff not been driving while intoxicated. Additionally, Judge Mathias cautioned that under the majority’s rationale, “every possession offense ... will never be part of any criminal episode. [ ... ] [S]uch a result contravenes both the language and intent of Indiana Code § 35-50-1-2.””

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
   e.g. Deshazier v. State · Cole v. State

3. “every possession offense ... will never be part of any criminal episode.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
   e.g. Johnican v. State · Cole v. State