749 So. 2d 862 - State v. Herrington’s Empirical Analysis
1999
Citation profile
3
cited by 3 later decisions
1
states following
July 2006
most recently cited
3 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on State v. Dorthey · 384 So. 2d 355 - State v. Bonanno · 433 So. 2d 688 - State v. Smith · 419 So. 2d 475 - State v. Lanclos · 398 So. 2d 1049 - State v. Jones
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 3 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“In State v. Lewis, 30,536 (La.App.2d Cir.4/8/98), 711 So.2d 383 , the defendant made an argument similar to that raised in the present case. The defendant pled guilty to drug related charges. After the plea, the defendant discovered that he was not eligible for parole under La. R.S. 15:574.4 because he was a third felony offender. He appealed, arguing that his plea was not voluntary because he was not informed of his ineligibility for parole. This court held that the trial court did not have to inform the defendant that he was ineligible for parole because it was not part of the statute under which he pled guilty. In State v. Lewis, supra , this court stated: Defendant was ... a third-felony offender. LSA-R.S. 15:574.4 A(1) provides, in pertinent part, that "[a] person convicted of a third or subsequent felony ... shall not be eligible for parole." Thus, Defendant's ineligibility for parole arises from his status as a third-felony offender and not as a mandatory portion of the sentence to be imposed under the statute of conviction. Since Defendant is ineligible for parole due to his status as a third-felony offender rather than due to a mandate of the statute of conviction, the district court was not required to advise him of that ineligibility at the time it accepted his guilty plea. In State v. Lewis, supra , the defendant was denied parole eligibility due to his status as a third felony offender. In the present case, the defendant is required to serve 85 percent of his sen”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
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.