846 So. 2d 67 - State v. Vu’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

12 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 12 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “We note that the three misdemeanor predicate charges were not consolidated for trial. Thus, the penalties need not be aggregated for purposes of determining the necessity of a jury trial. In those instances when more than one misdemeanor offense is charged by separate bills of information, but are consol idated for trial, the aggregate possible punishments are determinative of whether the defendant is entitled to a jury trial. State v. Hornung, 620 So.2d 816, 817 (La.1993). In this case defendant was charged by three separate citations, each case had a different docket number, separate minute entries and separate waiver forms were executed for each. Although there was one colloquy, defendant requested that there be one plea colloquy for the three offenses. It does not appear there was any intent by the State or the defendant to consolidate the three cases. As such, standing alone, none of the misdemeanor offenses to which defendant pled guilty carried a fíne in excess of $1,000 or imprisonment in excess of six months. Accordingly, defendant was not entitled to a jury trial under the facts of this case. State v. Stewart, 02-196, pp. 6-7 (La.App. 3 Cir. 10/2/02), 827 So.2d 1277, 1279 . Since defendant was not entitled to a jury trial, the trial judge correctly informed him during the colloquy that he was entitled to a “judge trial” and the predicate guilty pleas were not defective for enhancement purposes. This assignment of error is without merit. Id. at 74.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 131 So. 3d 342 - State v. Boudreaux

2. “evidences a clear intent by the Legislature that all prior DWI convictions be considered in determining the applicable penalty ... and that it is the number of prior convictions, not their sequence, which determines the appropriate designation of a subsequent offense.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 889 So. 2d 1202 - State v. Curry