Bland v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1993
Citation profile
8 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 8 later decisions — most recently October 2019
8 state decisions
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
Relationships
Relies on McClain v. State · State v. Chaney · Austin v. State · Brezenoff v. State · Wylie v. State
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 8 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“In Austin , we held that “[njormally a first offender should receive a more favorable sentence than the presumptive sentence for a second offender.” Id. at 657-68 . We indicated that this rule should be deviated from only in exceptional cases. Id. at 658 . Subsequently, in Brezenoff v. State, 658 P.2d 1359, 1362 (Alaska App.1983), we clarified that an “exceptional case” for purposes of the Austin rule is one in which there are significant aggravating factors as specified in AS 12.55.155(c), or the kind of extraordinary circumstances that would warrant referral to the three-judge panel, under AS 12.55.165-.175, for enhancement of the presumptive term. More recently, we have held that, before receiving an exceptional sentence under the Austin rule, a first offender is entitled to advance notice of the aggravating factors or extraordinary circumstances to be relied on by the sentencing court. Wylie v. State, 797 P.2d 651 , 662 & n. 9 (Alaska App.1990); see also Collins v. State, 816 P.2d 1383, 1384-85 (Alaska App.1991). Austin’s fundamental policy of protecting first offenders against harsher treatment than similarly situated second offenders continues to apply when a first offender is sentenced for a probation violation. See, e.g., Luepke v. State, 765 P.2d 988, 990-91 (Alaska App.1988). In such a case, however, the probation violation itself may be indicative of the offender’s poor prospects for rehabilitation; this factor, either alone or in conjunction with other factors, ma”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Espinoza v. State“does not thereby forfeit the right to a sentence that is reasonable under the totality of the circumstances of the case.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Henry
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.