State v. Tribbit’s Empirical Analysis
2000
Citation profile
8
cited by 8 later decisions
1
states following
February 2003
most recently cited
8 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on 603 So. 2d 739 - State v. Lobato · State v. Mims · 475 So. 2d 336 - State v. Counterman · State v. Stec · 734 So. 2d 33 - State v. Richmond
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.
“In his fourth assignment of error, the defendant contends that the trial judge erred in denying his motion to reconsider a constitutionally excessive sentence because he did not adequately consider the guidelines set forth in La.C.Cr.P. art. 894.1 in particularizing his life sentence. He argues that the maximum sentence was unwarranted in his case because he is not the worst type of offender and his was not the most serious offense. The State responds that, although the defendant filed a motion to reconsider his underlying sentence, he did not file a motion to reconsider his enhanced sentence. The State also points out that, after finding that the defendant was a third felony habitual offender, the trial judge imposed the minimum mandatory sentence, not the maximum sentence. The State notes that the defendant did not present evidence at the habitual offender sentencing hearing to rebut the presumption of constitutionality 14of the minimum prison sentence mandated by La. R.S. 15:529.1. The record reflects that the defendant failed to file a motion to reconsider his enhanced sentence, but he did verbally object when it was imposed. La.C.Cr.P. art. 881.1 provides that a defendant may file a motion to reconsider sentence within 30 days of sentencing, but requires that the motion be made orally at the time of sentencing, or in writing, and that it set forth the specific grounds on which the motion is based. The failure to file a motion to reconsider sentence, or to state the speci”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“[i]f there is an adequate factual basis for the sentence contained in the record, the trial court's failure to articulate every circumstance listed in Article 894.1 will not require a remand for re-sentencing.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Williams“The court shall state for the record the considerations taken into account and the factual basis therefor in imposing sentence.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Williams
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.