741 So. 2d 849 - State v. Gedric’s Empirical Analysis
1999
Citation profile
30 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 31 later decisions — most recently October 2016 · most notably State v. Jones (2002), 988 So. 2d 793 - State v. Perkins (2008)
30 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. Parker · State v. Ducote · 669 So. 2d 433 - State v. Gavin · 465 So. 2d 709 - State v. Coleman · 663 So. 2d 307 - State v. King
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 31 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“A trial court may correct an illegal sentence at any time. Only those claims relating to the legality of the sentence itself under the applicable sentencing statutes may be raised in a motion to correct an illegal sentence. Even if the sentence is legal, the court “may amend or change the sentence, within the legal limits of its discretion, prior to the | ^beginning of execution of the sentence,” After commencement of execution of the sentence, “in felony cases in which the defendant has been sentenced to imprisonment without hard labor and in misdemeanor cases, the sentencing judge may reduce the sentence or may amend the sentence to place the defendant on supervised probation.” After appeal attempts are exhausted, the trial court lacks jurisdiction to take any action in a criminal proceeding other than the actions specified in La.Code Crim.P. art. 916 (none of which authorize a change in a legal sentence), or “as otherwise provided by law” (such as to handle an application for a writ of habe-as corpus or an application for postcon-viction relief). Under article 916(3), the trial court retains jurisdiction to correct an illegal sentence or to take other appropriate action pursuant to a properly made or filed motion to reconsider sentence. For felony cases in which the defendant has been sentenced to imprisonment at hard labor (as in this case), there is no authorization for the court to amend the sentence after execution of the sentence has begun unless the court grants a ti”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
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.