893 So. 2d 7 - State v. Williams’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

292 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 293 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “|4P. (1) A person convicted of aggravated incest shall be fined an amount not to exceed fifty thousand dollars, or imprisoned, with or without hard labor, for a term not less than five years nor more than twenty years, or both. (2) Whoever commits the crime of aggravated incest on a victim under the age of thirteen years when the offender is seventeen years of age or older shall be punished by imprisonment at hard labor for not less than twenty-five years nor more than ninety-nine years. At least twenty-five years of the sentence imposed shall be served without benefit of parole, probation, or suspension of sentence. (3) Upon completion of the term of imprisonment imposed in accordance with Paragraph (2) of this Subsection, the offender shall be monitored by the Department of Public Safety and Corrections through the use of electronic monitoring equipment for the remainder of his natural life.”

   13 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
   e.g. State v. Romero · State v. Presentine

2. “The trial judge is given a wide discretion in the imposition of sentences within the statutory limits, and the sentence imposed by him should not be set aside as excessive in the absence of a manifest abuse of his discretion. A trial judge is in the best position to consider the aggravating and mitigating circumstances of a particular case, and, therefore, is given broad discretion in sentencing. On review, an appellate court does not determine whether another sentence may have been more appropriate, but whether the trial court abused its discretion.”

   11 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
   e.g. State v. HB · State v. Blossom

3. “should be so interpreted as to be in harmony with, preserve, and effectuate the manifest intent of the legislature, and an interpretation should be avoided which would operate to defeat the purpose and object of the statute.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
   e.g. State v. Fussell · State v. Breedlove