823 So. 2d 746 - MacK v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

25 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 25 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “[W]hen a sentencing court imposes a true split sentence, the judge has effectively sentenced the defendant in advance for a probation violation and is not later permitted to change his or her mind. Upon revocation of probation, the court may not order the defendant incarcerated for a period exceeding the suspended portion because to do so would be a violation of the double jeopardy clause.”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
   e.g. 4 So. 3d 44 - Green v. State · 14 So. 3d 1058 - Bracero v. State

2. “In 1993, appellant was convicted of burglary of a dwelling and pronounced a habitual felony offender by the trial court. He was then given a sentence of thirty years, a period authorized only by the habitual offender statute, but the court suspended the sentence with a condition of twelve to fourteen months in a drug farm. In 1994, the trial court revoked appellant's probation and sentenced him, as a habitual offender, to thirty years.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 975 So. 2d 1254 - Welling v. State

3. “[W]here the requisite predicate felonies essential to qualify a defendant for habitualization do not exist as a matter of law and that error is apparent from the face of the record, rule 3.800(a) can be used to correct the resulting habitual offender sentence.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Wright v. State