89 So. 3d 901 - Dunbar v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

31 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 31 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “As it relates to barring multiple punishments for the same offense in the non-capital sentencing context the application of the double jeopardy clause ... • turns on the extent and legitimacy of a defendant’s expectation of finality in that sentence. If a defendant has a legitimate expectation of finality, then "an increase in that sentence is prohibited by the double jeopardy clause. If, however, there is some circumstánee which undermines the legitimacy of that expectation, then a court may permissibly increase the sentence.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent
   e.g. Aaron M. Annatone v. State

2. “a defendant's 'right to be present extends to the hearing where her sentence will be reconsidered' because sentencing is 'a critical stage of every criminal proceeding.' In fact, the right to be present at sentencing is 'explicitly provided in the Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure' which requires that '[i]n all prosecutions for crime the defendant shall be present ... at the pronouncement of judgment and the imposition of sentence.'”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent
   e.g. Bonner v. State