Zimmerman v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

5 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 5 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “"`As a general rule, a criminal offender must be sentenced pursuant to the statute in effect at the time of the commission of the offense, at least in the absence of an expression of intent by the legislature to make the new statute applicable to previously committed crimes. An increase in the penalty for previously committed crimes violates the prohibition against ex post facto legislation. "`A legislature may, however, prospectively reduce the maximum penalty for a crime even though those sentenced to the maximum penalty before the effective date of the act would serve a longer term of imprisonment than one sentenced to the maximum term there[after]. Where a statute reduces the punishment which may be imposed for a crime committed before the statute is enacted but for which sentence is imposed after the statutory amelioration, the ameliorative statute ordinarily vests the court with the discretionary power to impose the lesser punishment provided by the new law.'"”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. MH v. State · 838 So. 2d 408 - Ex Parte Zimmerman

2. “Accordingly, we reject Zimmerman's argument that there is no possible rational relationship between classification based upon the date the sentence became final and any legitimate state interest. "Some courts have resolved the issue of the effect of an amendatory act by statutory construction. See Campbell, supra at § 8:22. For example, in Abdo v. Commonwealth , 218 Va. 473 , 479-80 , 237 S.E.2d 900 , 903-04 (1977), the court treated the issue as follows: "`When the General Assembly reduced the penalty for the offense of manufacturing phencyclidine it did not enact accompanying legislation extending the benefit of the mitigating effect of the statute beyond that provided for in Code § 1-16. We see no constitutional question involved in this case. The fact that the legislature reduces the penalty for a crime after a prisoner is sentenced, and he does not benefit from that mitigation of punishment, does not constitute an arbitrary classification or deny the prisoner equal protection of the law. Here the legislature, in the exercise of its reasonable legislative determination, has seen fit to draw the line of demarcation at the point where final judgment is pronounced and entered. It cannot be said that to draw it at this point is more arbitrary than at some other stage in the criminal process. Bradley v. United States , 410 U.S. 605 . . . (1973).' "Based on the foregoing, we find no violation of equal protection in the prospective application of the amendment to § 13A-5-9 . The”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 838 So. 2d 408 - Ex Parte Zimmerman

3. “"Under the well-recognized rule, Zimmerman's argument has no merit. `[A] reduction of sentences only prospectively from the date a new sentencing statute takes effect is not a denial of equal protection.' 16B C.J.S. Constitutional Law § 777 (1985). See also Arthur W. Campbell, Law of Sentencing § 8:6 (2d ed. 1991) (`It has been ruled equal-protection principles [do not] require retroactive application of a newly enacted statute which would lessen sentencing sanctions . . . .'). See, e.g., Mirenda v. Ulibarri , 351 F. Supp. 676 (C.D.Cal. 1972); In re Moreno , 58 Cal.App.3d 740 , 743 , 130 Cal.Rptr. 78 , 80 (1976) (`Equal protection is not denied where an amendatory statute reducing a penalty is not applied to persons whose convictions were final before the effective date of the ameliorative amendment.'); Carter”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 838 So. 2d 408 - Ex Parte Zimmerman