83 Md. App. 204 - Simms v. State’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. “(a) In general. — Except as otherwise provided in this section, a person who violates a provision of §§ 5-602 through 5-606 of this subtitle with respect to a Schedule I or Schedule II narcotic drug is guilty of a felony and on conviction is subject to imprisonment not exceeding 20 years or a fine not exceeding $25,000 or both. (b) Second time offender. — (1) A person who is convicted under subsection (a) of this section ... shall be sentenced to imprisonment for not less than 10 years ... if the person previously has been convicted once: (1) under subsection (a) of this section or § 5-609 of this subtitle---- (2) The court may not suspend the mandatory minimum sentence to less than 10 years. (3) Except as provided in § 4-305 of the Correctional Services Article, the person is not eligible for parole during the mandatory minimum sentence. (c) Third time offender. (1) A person who is convicted under subsection (a) of this section ... shall be sentenced to imprisonment for not less than 25 years ... if the person previously: (1) has served at least one term of confinement of at least 180 days in a correctional institution as a result of a conviction under subsection (a) of this section, § 5-609 of this subtitle, or § 5-614 of this subtitle; and (ii) has been convicted twice, if the convictions arise from separate occasions: 1. under subsection (a) of this section or § 5-609 of this subtitle.... (2) The court may not suspend any part of the mandatory minimum sentence of 25 years”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 175 Md. App. 153 - Taylor v. State

2. “We see no “expertise” that an administrative judge would have to offer in this situation. As the State points out, the process of asking the administrative judge for a postponement is intended as a safeguard because “it is the administrative judge who has an overall view of the court’s business, who is responsible ‘for the administration of the court,’ who assigns trial judges, who ‘supervisees] the assignment of actions for trial,’ who supervises the court personnel involved in the assignment of cases, and who received reports from such personnel. “Consequently, the administrative judge is ordinarily in a much better position than another judge of the trial court, or an appellate court, to make the judgment as to whether good cause for the postponement of a criminal case exists.” (Footnotes omitted). (Brackets in original). State v. Frazier, 298 Md. 422, 453-54 [ 470 A.2d 1269 ] (1984). Such a procedure, generally required for postponements, would have no real value here, since a new date could not be set until appellant’s whereabouts were known.”

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

3. “The State was prepared to go forward with the case on August 15, 1988 and “was prevented from doing so only by the constitutional prohibition against trying appellant in absentia.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 114 Md. App. 678 - State v. Dorsey