912 So. 2d 54 - Frazier v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

5 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 5 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “If the 2.0 points for prior record were deleted from Stallings' scoresheet, he would have 40.2 total points rather than 42.2 total points. The scoresheet provides that when the points are less than 44, which they would be in either instance, the lowest permissible sentence is any non-state prison sanction. Stallings did receive a non-state prison sentence; however, there was a significant range within which the judge could choose to sentence and the number of points logically might affect the judge's selection within the range. * * * There is, in short, no indication whether Stallings' sentence would have been any different if the 2.0 points ... had not been included on the scoresheet. However, because criminal defendants should be sentenced using a correct scoresheet, and we cannot be sure that the lower score would not have affected the sentencing decision, we reverse and remand for the trial court to resentence Stallings using a corrected scoresheet. We are unwilling to say that any error in a score below 44 points would be harmless simply because the same sentencing range applies.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Cosby v. State

2. “for either the attachment of conclusive record proof that the same sentence of 12 years would have been imposed, or for re-sentencing with a corrected scoresheet.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Cosby v. State

3. “failed to include any of the key allegations,”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Spera v. State