893 So. 2d 1009 - State v. Pitre’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

10 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 11 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “[T]he failure to so advise the Defendant is harmless because a hearing was held, at which the Defendant was adjudicated a ... habitual offender. State v. Beverly, 03-1348 (La.App. 3 Cir. 3/3/04) , 867 So.2d 107 . See also State v. Wilson, 02-700 (La.App. 3 Cir. 12/18/02) , 833 So.2d 560 , writ denied, 03-216 (La.5/2/03), 842 So.2d 1100 , cert. denied, 540 U.S. 952 , 124 S.Ct. 393 , 157 L.Ed.2d 285 (2003) (finding the failure to advise of right to a hearing was harmless because a hearing was held.) We further note that although the minutes indicate the Defendant testified, nothing in the minutes indicates the Defendant acknowledged his status as a habitual offender.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 922 So. 2d 1216 - State v. Staton · 916 So. 2d 303 - State v. Alexander

2. “Additionally, the court notes that the minutes of the habitual offender adjudication do not indicate the trial court vacated the originally imposed sentences of seven years on each count before imposing the habitual offender sentences. Louisiana Revised Statutes | s15:529.1(D)(3) requires the trial court to vacate the previously imposed sentence prior to imposing a habitual offender sentence. In State v. Mayer, 99-3124 (La.3/31/00), 760 So.2d 309 , however, the supreme court found that vacation of the habitual offender sentence was not necessary where the transcript failed to reflect the trial court vacated the previously imposed sentence before imposing the habitual offender sentence. The supreme court reasoned that the substantial rights of the defendant were protected since the eommitment/minute entry “reflect[ed] that the trial judge vacated the defendant’s original sentence and thereby eliminated any possible confusion as to the terms of the defendant’s confinement....” Id. at 310 . The present case is distinguishable since the minute entry does not indicate that the trial court vacated the originally imposed sentences before sentencing the Defendant as a habitual offender. To eliminate any possible confusion as to the terms of the Defendant’s confinement, this court will order the trial court to vacate the originally imposed sentences of seven years on each count. See State v. Mayer, 99-3124 (La.App. 3 Cir. 3/31/00) , 760 So.2d 309 (citing State ex rel. Haisch v. State,”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 79 So. 3d 1220 - State v. Allen

3. “The record indicates a possible error patent regarding the number of verdicts returned by the jury. Defendant was indicted on three counts of malfeasance in office and one count of injuring public records, but a verdict was returned only as to one count of malfeasance in office. A motion to sever offenses was filed by the State on February 14, 1991, with the State arguing that count two should be tried separately. On May 13, 1991, the court ordered the defendant to show cause on May 15, 1991 as to why the motion should not be granted. The court minutes of May 15, 1991 failed to show whether the court ruled on this motion. At trial, only count two was read to the jury. The record does not show the disposition of the other counts. La.C. Cr.P. art. 819 provides: If there is more than one count in an indictment, the jury must find a verdict as to each count, unless it cannot agree on a verdict as to a count. We will therefore remand the case for a determination of whether the motion to sever was granted and, if not, for a proper disposition of the remaining charges.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 903 So. 2d 1275 - State v. Hypolite