Peoples v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

2 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 2 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “(a) Except as otherwise provided in this section, the state may seek to have a person sentenced as a habitual offender for any felony by alleging, on a page separate from the rest of the charging instrument, that the person has accumulated two (2) prior unrelated felony convictions. (b) The state may not seek to have a person sentenced as a habitual offender for a felony offense under this seetion if; ... (8) ... the following appllies]: ... (C) The total number of unrelated convictions that the person has for: (i) dealing in or selling a legend drug under IC 1642-19-27; (i) dealing in cocaine or a narcotic drug (IC 35-48-4-1); (iii) dealing in a schedule I, II, III controlled substance (IC 35-48-4-2); (iv) dealing in a schedule IV controlled substance (IC 35-48-4-3); and (v) dealing in a schedule V controlled substance (IC 35-48-14-4); does not exceed one (1). [[Image here]] (d) A conviction does not count for purposes of this section as a prior unrelated felony conviction if:; ... (8) ... the following appl[ies}: ... (C) The total number of unrelated convictions that the person has for: (i) dealing in or selling a legend drug under IC 1642-19-27; (ii) dealing in cocaine or a narcotic drug (IC 35-48-4-1); (ifi) dealing in a schedule I, II, III controlled substance (IC 35-48-4-2); (iv) dealing in a schedule IV controlled substance (IC 35-48-4-3); and (v) dealing in a schedule V controlled substance (IC 35-48-4-4); does not exceed one (1).”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Peoples v. State · Shepherd v. State

2. “'confusing' " and interpreted to mean that " 'a trial court is prohibited from enhancing a drug offense under the general habitual offender statute where the underlying offense is not delineated in Indiana Code § 35-50-2-2(b)(4) and the defendant has not acerued two or more unrelated dealing convictions.'”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Shepherd v. State

3. “only prior convictions but requires the summation of the 'total number of unrelated convictions' Defendant has accumulated for dealing drugs,”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Shepherd v. State