913 So. 2d 836 - State v. Smith’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

27 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 27 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “The defendant also argues that he was entitled to a jury trial on the issue of his multiple offender status. He suggests that the multiple offender statute violates the Fourteenth and the Sixth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution because the statute allows a sentence to be increased beyond the statutory maximum without requiring the fact of the prior convictions to be submitted to the jury and proved beyond a reasonable doubt. The defendant relies upon the recent United States Supreme Court case of Shepard v. U.S., 544 U.S. 13 , 125 S.Ct. 1254 , 161 L.Ed.2d 205 (2005), in which the Court held that a sentencing court cannot look to police reports in making "generic burglary" decisions under the Armed Career Criminal Act. In its opinion, the Court noted that the issue raised The concern underlying Jones and Apprendi : the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments guarantee a jury standing between a defendant and the power of a state, and they guarantee a jury's finding of any disputed fact essential to increase the ceiling of a potential sentence. While the disputed fact here can be described as a fact about a prior conviction, it is too far removed from the conclusive significance of a prior judicial record, and too much like the findings subject to Jones and Apprendi , to say that Almendarez-Torres[ v. U.S., 523 U.S. 224 , 118 S.Ct. 1219 , 140 L.Ed.2d 350 (1998) ] clearly authorizes a to resolve the dispute. The rule of reading statutes to avoid serious risks of unconstitutionality, se”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 998 So. 2d 278 - State v. Tassin · 956 So. 2d 41 - State v. Wilson

2. “only to substantive offenses, not to multiple bill proceedings.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 947 So. 2d 115 - State v. Jackson · 956 So. 2d 41 - State v. Wilson

3. “hoUnder La.C.Cr.P. art. 881.1, a defendant may file a motion for reconsideration of sentence within thirty days following the imposition of sentence. The motion shall be oral if made at the time of sentencing or written if made thereafter, and it shall set forth the specific grounds on which it is based. La. C.Cr.P. art. 881.1 A(2). Absent the filing of a timely written motion for reconsideration of sentence or making of an oral objection at the sentencing hearing, a defendant is precluded from urging on appeal any ground of objection to the sentence.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 958 So. 2d 1203 - State v. Alexander