865 So. 2d 284 - State v. Hampton’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

136 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 136 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “Criminal conspiracy is the agreement or combination of two or more persons for the specific purpose of committing any crime; provided that an agreement or combination to commit a crime shall not amount to a criminal conspiracy unless, in addition to such agreement or combination, one or more of such parties does an act in furtherance of the object of the agreement or combination.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Casaday · 968 So. 2d 823 - State v. Powell

2. “[i]f the defendant is convicted of two or more offenses based on the same act or transaction, or constituting parts of a common scheme or plan, the terms of imprisonment shall be served concurrently unless the court expressly directs that some or all be served consecutively.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 899 So. 2d 751 - State v. Crenshaw · 907 So. 2d 739 - State v. Leger

3. “Our state constitution prohibits excessive punishment. La. Const, art. I, § 20 (1974). The test imposed by the reviewing court in determining the ex-cessiveness of a sentence is two-pronged. First, the record must show that the trial court took cognizance of the criteria set fourth in La. C. Cr. P. art. 894.1. The trial judge is not required to list every aggravating or mitigating circumstance so long as the record reflects that he adequately considered the guidelines of the article. State v. Smith, 483 So.2d 688 (La. 1983); State v. Gann, 40,058 (La. App.2d Cir.09/21/05), 911 So.2d 384 . The articulation of the factual basis for a sentence is the goal of La. C. Cr. P. art. 894.1, not rigid or mechanical compliance with its provisions. Where the record clearly shows an adequate factual basis for the sentence imposed, remand is unnecessary even where there has not been full compliance with art. 894.1. State v. Landos, 419 So.2d 475 (La.1982); State v. Hampton, 38,017 (La.App.2d Cir.01/28/04), 865 So.2d 284 , writs denied, 2004-0834 (La.03/11/05), 896 So.2d 57 , 2004-2380 (La.06/03/05), 903 So.2d 452 . The important elements which should be considered are the defendant’s personal history (age, family ties, marital status, health, employment record), prior criminal record, seriousness of offense and the likelihood of rehabilitation. State v. Jones, 398 So.2d 1049 (La.1981); State v. \%Haley, 38,258 (La.App.2d Cir.04/22/04), 873 So.2d 747 , writ denied, 2004-2606 (La.06/24/05), 9”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 58 So. 3d 655 - State v. Stokes