Eustice v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1994
Citation profile
14 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 14 later decisions — most recently March 2010
14 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 Mahan & Rowsey, Inc. v. Oklahoma Natural Gas · Bourjaily v. United States · Mehring v. State · Renfro v. State · Rivera 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 14 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Under our current rules of criminal procedure, a sentence must contain both a finding of the amount of the presentence confinement and either an express award or an express denial of a credit for that presentence confinement. W.R.Cr.P. 32(c)(2)(E) & (F); accord W.R.Cr.P. 32(a)(3)(C) (similar requirement for contested information contained in the presen-tence investigation report). Despite our rules, these issues continue to plague our docket; therefore, we deem it appropriate to refine our standard procedure for awarding a presentence confinement credit. See Renfro, 785 P.2d at 497 n. 7. If a sentence fails to comply with W.R.Cr.P. 32(c)(2)(E) or (F), the accused would be entitled to have a limited remand for a new award of a credit unless we have been able to fashion a correct award from the record. Compare Mehring v. State, 860 P.2d 1101 (Wyo.1993) (limited remand for written findings to correct violations of W.R.Cr.P. 32(a)(3)(C)(ii)); and Rivera v. State, 840 P.2d 933 (Wyo.1992) (remand not necessary when the Supreme Court can accomplish amendment to judgment and sentence). On remand and resentenc-ing, “we assume appellants will not be punished for exercising their constitutional right to appeal.” Griebel v. State, 763 P.2d 475, 478 (Wyo.1988).”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Milladge v. State“(c) In reaching its findings on all controverted issues (standard 18 — 6.6(a)(i)), the sentencing court should employ the preponderance of the evidence standard and may treat the contents of a verified pre-sentence report as presumptively accurate, provided, however, that material factual allegations made in the presentence report and effectively challenged by the defendant should not be deemed to satisfy the government’s burden of persuasion unless reasonable verification of such information can be shown to have been made (standard 18 — 5.1(c)) or adequate factual corroboration otherwise exists in the sentencing or trial record. Ill ABA STANDARDS FOR CRIMINAL JUSTICE Standard 18-6.4(c) at 448 (2d ed. Supp. 1986).”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Young v. State
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.