877 So. 2d 112 - State v. Campbell’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

42 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 44 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “) In this case, the trial court sentenced the defendant to imprisonment for seven years at hard labor. However, at the time the crime was committed, La. R.S. 14:32.1(B) mandated a sentence of: a fine of not less than two thousand dollars nor more than fifteen thousand dollars, and imprisonment, with or without hard labor, for not less than two years nor more than twenty. Thus, the trial court imposed an illegally lenient sentence because it failed to impose the mandatory fine upon the defendant pursuant to La. R.S. 14:32.1(B). Louisiana Code of Criminal Procedure article 882(A) provides that”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. GT, JR. · 973 So. 2d 896 - State v. Coker

2. “[I]n giving a genuine construction consistent with the plain language of La. Rev.Stat. 14:98 D(l), and keeping in mind the strict construction mandated under the rule of lenity, the defendant’s sentence cannot be enhanced without benefit of suspension pursuant to La. Rev.Stat. 15:529.1. The plain language of La.Rev.Stat. 14:98 D(l) mandates a suspended sentence and treatment for the substance abuse disorder, notwithstanding any other provision of law to the contrary. The provisions of La.Rev.Stat. 14:98 B(l) cannot be harmonized with La.Rev. Stat. 15:529.1 A(l)(b) and G. In accordance with the intent evidenced by the Legislature in enacting 2001 La. Acts 1163 , and the principle that the statute specifically directed to the matter at issue should prevail as an exception to the statute more general in character, we find the district court correctly applied the sentencing provisions of La.Rev. Stat. 14:98.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. GT, JR.

3. “While Louisiana’s Habitual Offender Law prohibits probation or suspension of sentence for any sentence imposed under its provisions, the more specific statute, which applies solely to operating a vehicle while intoxicated, specifically provides ‘notwithstanding any other | ^provision of law to the contrary ... the remainder of the sentence shall be suspended....’ Not only is LaJEtev. Stat. 14:98 the statute specifically directed to DWI third offenders, but the plain language of that statute instructs the sentencing court in no uncertain terms that it must not stray from the sentencing provisions contained in that statute, even in the event those terms conflict with other provisions of law.”

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