911 So. 2d 813 - Isaac v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

49 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 49 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “[E]ven though appellant was resentenced in June 2001, Apprendi does not apply because his conviction became final in 1998. Apprendi, of course, involves a right under the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution for state criminal defendants to have certain facts determined by a jury beyond a reasonable doubt, rather than by a judge. As the Hughes retroactivity analysis instructs, the rule of Apprendi is not "of sufficient magnitude as to require retroactive application." [ 901 So.2d at 840 ]. Here, because Isaac's jury was obviously discharged after the original criminal trial on January 15, 1997, the factual matters underlying the guidelines departure sentences may not be submitted to a jury. Accordingly, Hughes ' focus on finality of the conviction is very important, and I would follow that rule until it is altered. Because these convictions were final long before announcement of the Apprendi rule, I would let the twenty-year sentences stand.”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent
   e.g. 955 So. 2d 517 - Galindez v. State · 910 So. 2d 284 - Galindez v. State

2. “a departure sentence imposed pursuant to the trial court determining a fact by merely a preponderance of the evidence violates the holding of Apprendi [v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 , 120 S.Ct. 2348 , 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000)], as explained by Blakely [v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296 , 124 S.Ct. 2531 , 159 L.Ed.2d 403 (2004)].”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Morrow v. State · 955 So. 2d 517 - Galindez v. State

3. “[T]he issue is whether such cases [as Apprendi ] can be applied to defendants whose convictions already were final when the decision was rendered.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent
   e.g. 955 So. 2d 517 - Galindez v. State