Townsend v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

16 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 16 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “(a) Except as otherwise provided in this section, the state may seek to have a person sentenced as a habitual offender for any felony by alleging, on a page separate from the rest of the charging instrument, that the person has accumulated two (2) prior unrelated felony convictions. [[Image here]] (d) A conviction does not count for purposes of this section as a prior unrelated felony conviction if: [[Image here]] (8) all of the following apply: (A) The offense is an offense under IC 16-42-19 or IC 35-48-4. (B) The offense is not listed in section 2(b)(4) of this chapter. (C) The total number of unrelated convictions that the person has for: (i) dealing in or selling a legend drug under IC 16-42-19-27. (ii) dealing in cocaine or a nareotic drug (IC 85-48-4-1); (ifi) dealing in a schedule I, II, III controlled substance (IC 85-48-4-2); (iv) dealing in a schedule IV controlled substance (IC 85-48-4-3); and (v) dealing in a schedule V controlled substance (IC 35-48-4-4); does not exceed one (1). ...”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Puckett v. State · Williams v. State

2. “(a) Except as otherwise provided in this section, the state may seek to have a person sentenced as a habitual offender for any felony by alleging, on a page separate from the rest of the charging instrument, that the person has accurau-lated two (2) prior unrelated felony convictions. (b) The state may not seek to have a person sentenced as a habitual offender for a felony offense under this section if: (1) the offense is a misdemeanor that is enhanced to a felony in the same proceeding as the habitual offender proceeding solely because the person had a prior unrelated conviction; (2) the offense is an offense under 1.C. [§ 19-30-10-16 ...”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Puckett v. State

3. “A defendant has the burden of proving, by a preponderance of the evidence, all facts necessary to support a motion to dismiss. Townsend v. State , 793 N.E.2d 1092 , 1093 (Ind. Ct. App. 2003), trans. denied . When a party appeals from a negative judgment, we will reverse the trial court's ruling only if the evidence is without conflict and leads inescapably to the conclusion that the party was entitled to dismissal. Id.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. James Hill v. State of Indiana