745 So. 2d 694 - State v. Gregrich’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

24 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. “An illegal sentence may be corrected at any time by an appellate court on review. La.Code Crim.P. art. 882(A). [W]hen correction of an illegal sentence does not involve the exercise of sentencing discretion, there is no reason why the appellate court should not simply amend the sentence.... However, if correction involves the exercise of sentencing discretion ... the case must be remanded for the trial court to perform that function.”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Figueroa · 995 So. 2d 1253 - State v. DF

2. “An illegal sentence may be corrected at any time by an appellate court on review. La.Code Crim.P. art. 882(A). [WJhen correction of an illegal sentence does not involve the exercise of sentencing discretion, there is no reason why the appellate court should not simply amend the sentence.... However, if correction involves the exercise of sentencing discretion ... the case must be remanded for the trial court to perform that function. Fraser, 484 So.2d at 124 n. 5. In State v. Prince, 97-0727 (La.9/26/07); 701 So.2d 965 , the supreme court simply amended the sentence imposed by the trial court to delete the requirement of restitution where restitution was not authorized by statute. Also, in State v. Lee, 94-0814 (La.6/17/94); 641 So.2d 206 , the supreme court simply amended a sentence to delete the requirement of restitution where restitution was not authorized by statute. In State v. Yancy, 93-2798 (La.5/31/96); 673 So.2d 1018 , the supreme court amended the sentence to delete only that portion denying the defendant eligibility for parole where at the time of the crime there was no requirement of parole ineligibility. In State v. Yarbrough, 596 So.2d 311 (La.App. 3 Cir.), writ denied, 599 So.2d 317 (La.1992), the third circuit amended the portion of the defendant’s sentence that precluded parole, probation, or suspension of sentence where the preclusion of those benefits was not authorized by statute. We note that in State v. Narcisse, 97-3161 (La.6/26/98); 714 So.2d 698 , th”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 773 So. 2d 806 - State v. Callegari · 839 So. 2d 1193 - State v. Buckley

3. “The trial court must state for the record the considerations taken into account and the factual basis for the sentence. La.Code Crim.P. art. 894.1(C). Although the trial court need not refer to every factor listed in Article 894.1(A), the record should affirmatively reflect that adequate consideration was given to codal guidelines in particularizing the defendant's sentence. Yet, when the trial court fails to adequately address the factors of La.Code Crim.P. art. 894.1, "the trial court's reasoning alone will not necessitate the need for re-sentencing as long as an adequate factual basis is found within the record." The trial court may also consider other factors not provided by La.Code Crim.P. art. 894.1. Specifically, when the offense to which the defendant has pled guilty inadequately describes the entire course of the defendant's conduct, the court may consider the benefit obtained by the defendant through the plea bargain. The trial court should particularly make such considerations where the plea bargain results in a significant reduction in the defendant's potential exposure to imprisonment. In addition, the trial court may consider other criminal activity which did not result in a conviction.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 980 So. 2d 907 - State v. Creamer