778 So. 2d 744 - State v. Lefeure’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

15 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 15 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “When defendant pointed his gun at Mr. Ghebreziabher and ordered him to give him all the money he had, the armed robbery against Mr. Ghebrezia-bher was completed. Thereafter, the defendant entered the victims’ home without authorization and forced them to accompany him by holding them at gunpoint with the intent to commit a felony or theft. That completed the aggravated burglary. Likewise, the armed robbery of Mrs. Ghebreziabher occurred when the defendant pointed his gun at her and forced her to give him her jewelry. Therefore, we conclude that defendant was not subjected to double jeopardy. State v. Bridgewater, 726 So.2d at 992-993 . In reaching its conclusion that the defendant was not subjected to double jeopardy, the court in Bridgewater used the rationale of State v. Cureaux, 467 So.2d 1377, 1379-1380 (La.App. 5th Cir.1985) and State v. Ford, 608 So.2d 1058, 1063-1064 (La.App. 1st Cir.1992), li^which both held that convictions for the crimes of aggravated burglary and armed robbery do not violate the principle of double jeopardy: In State v. Cureaux, 467 So.2d 1377, 1379-1380 (LaApp. 5th Cir.1985), defendants were charged with aggravated burglary and armed robbery. One of the defendants knocked on the door to the victims’ home and asked if she could use the telephone. When the victims opened the door to allow her to enter their home, defendants burst through the door. Defendants were armed with guns. After committing batteries upon the victims, defendants stole various ”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 134 So. 3d 196 - State v. Pete

2. “In [State v.] Bridgewater, [98-658 (La.App. 5th Cir.12/16/98), 726 So.2d 987 ,] the defendant was convicted of armed robbery and aggravated burglary and he appealed. The defendant argued that the trial court erred in denying his motion to quash because the indictment violated the constitutional prohibition against double jeopardy when it subjected him to multiple punishments for the same offense. The victim, in Bridgewa-ter, testified that he was working on his car in the driveway, when the defendant and another man approached him from behind, pointed their gun at him and ordered him to give him all of his money. The victim’s wife was standing nearby. The perpetrators ordered both to go inside their house. The two men then ordered the victim’s wife to give them all of her jewelry. The perpetrators searched through the victims’ belongings and eventually left. Id. at 989 .”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 134 So. 3d 196 - State v. Pete

3. “If the defendant is convicted of two or more offenses based on the same act or transaction, or constituting parts of a common scheme or plan, the terms of imprisonment shall be served concurrently unless the court expressly directs that some or all be served consecutively. Other sentences of imprisonment shall be served consecutively unless the court expressly directs that some or all of them be served concurrently. In the case of the concurrent sentence, the judge shall specify, and the court minutes shall reflect, the date from which the sentences are to run concurrently.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 809 So. 2d 1056 - State v. Aleman