State v. Matthews’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

30 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. “(a) Correction. A court may at any time correct an illegal sentence imposed by it, or an incorrect calculation made by it in a sentencing scoresheet, or a sentence that does not grant proper credit for time served when it is affirmatively alleged that the court records demonstrate on their face an entitlement to that relief, provided that a party may not file a motion to correct an illegal sentence under this subdivision during the time allowed for the filing of a motion under subdivision (b)(1) or during the pendency of a direct appeal.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Johnson v. State · 957 So. 2d 600 - Williams v. State

2. “[t]he mootness doctrine does not destroy [this Court's] jurisdiction because the question ... is one of great public importance and is likely to recur”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Laverne Brown v. State of Florida · 957 So. 2d 600 - Williams v. State

3. “emphasized that the concerns previously relevant to [its] analysis in deciding Tripp and its progeny under the sentencing guidelines, specifically, to avoid the imposition of prison time in excess of that mandated by the sentencing guidelines in circumstances where probation on one or more counts follows prison time on one or more counts, are no longer present in CPC sentencing. Notwithstanding the use of a single score-sheet at the original sentencing proceeding, because the courts are no longer limited to a sentencing range in CPC sentencing and therefore do not treat separate offenses as an interrelated unit at the original sentencing, there is no justification for treating separate offenses as an interrelated unit after revocation of probation. Therefore, unlike sentencing under the guidelines, in the context of CPC sentencing [the supreme court] concluded that Tripp credit is not necessary to effectuate the intent of the CPC.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 41 So. 3d 372 - Owens v. State