State v. Bradley’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. “We do note that LSA-C.Cr.P. art. 883 does not specifically require the trial court state reasons justifying the imposi tion of a consecutive sentence when the crimes arise out of a single course of conduct. Rather, the history of the jurisprudence reveals that the requirement for articulating specific reasons for imposing a consecutive sentence is based on LSA-C.Cr.P. art. 894.1, which requires a sentencing court to “state for the record the considerations taken into account and the factual basis therefore in imposing sentence.” State v. Franks, 373 So.2d 1307, 1308 (La.1979). Over time, the Louisiana Supreme Court has found that the failure to articulate reasons for sentence pursuant to Article 894.1 does not require a remand when the sentence imposed is not “apparently severe” and there is an adequate factual basis for the sentence contained in the record. State v. Robicheaux, 412 So.2d 1313, 1319 (La.1982). Therefore, it logically follows that the failure to articulate specific reasons for imposing a consecutive sentence also does not require a remand if the record provides an adequate factual basis to support a consecutive sentence.”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 153 So. 3d 1029 - State v. McKeel · 865 So. 2d 284 - State v. Hampton

2. “[a]ny record lodged in this court may, with leave of court, be used, without necessity of duplication, in any other case on appeal or writ.”

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