State v. McNeal’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

8 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 8 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “In State v. Broussard, 416 So.2d at 111 , the multiple bill was filed thirteen months after sentencing and three months before the defendant was eligible for parole. The Supreme Court found that this delay was unreasonable. In State v. Morris, 94-0553, at pp. 3-4, 645 So.2d at 1297 [ (La.App. 4 Cir. 11/17/94), 645 So.2d 1295 ], this court found that a delay of five months between the defendant's guilty plea and the holding of the multiple bill hearing was not unreasonable and did not prejudice the defendant because the State was delayed by having to wait for documents and because the defendant knew he would be multiple billed when he pleaded guilty. In State v. Langlois, 96-0084, pp. 7-8 (La.App. 4 Cir. 5/21/97), 695 So.2d 544 -545, writ granted in part on other grounds and remanded, 97-1491 (La.11/14/97), 703 So.2d 1281 , the defendant, whose first multiple offender adjudication had been vacated, argued that the fifteen to seventeen month delay in holding a second multiple bill hearing was unreasonable. The trial court stated that the delay was justified by the unique and distinctive procedural history of the case. This court also found that the delay was justifiable and that the defendant was not prejudiced. The court noted that the defendant was not expecting an early release prior to the delayed multiple bill hearing. In State v. Carter, 630 So.2d 926 (La. App. 4 Cir.1993), this court found a fifteen month delay reasonable where both the State and the defendant were grant”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 786 So. 2d 876 - State v. Grimes

2. “In the case at bar, the State filed-the multiple bill of information almost two years after defendant’s conviction for armed robbery. During that time, the defendant was . not sentenced on- the original conviction. The defendant was found guilty of- armed robbery on September 1G,. 1996. The State eventually filed the multiple bill-of information on August 17,1998. A review of the record indicates that ■ defendant’s sentencing was continued three times on joint motion of- the State and the defendant. The last joint motion to continue was granted on June 29, 1998.’ The court reset the matter six other times. The record does not indicate which party sought to have the matter: reset on- these other occasions. ■ While almost two years elapsed between defendant’s .conviction and the filing'-of the multiple bill, the delay was not ■ prejudicial. The defendant - was convicted of armed robbery-apd was in- carcemted at the time the multiple bill was filed. Although the defendant had not been sentenced on the original conviction prior to the filing of the multiple bill, the minimum sentence under La. R.S. 14:64, would have been five years at hard labor without benefit of probation, parole or suspension of sentence. Thus, even if .defendant had been sentenced to the minimum sentence on the original conviction, he would still have \ n,been incarcerated at the time the State filed the multiple bill. In addition, the defendant had pending charges of possession of a firearm by a convicted fe”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 190 So. 3d 354 - State v. Ellis

3. “The same considerations which underlie the constitutional right to a speedy trial compel a conclusion that upon conviction a defendant is entitled to know the full consequences of the verdict within a reasonable time. Since the enhancement of penalty provision is incidental to the latest conviction, the proceeding to sentence under the provision should not be unduly delayed.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 786 So. 2d 876 - State v. Grimes