Cannon v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

1 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 1 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “The second case, labeled as Cause No. 01-150, involves a controlled methamphetamine buy at Bill Cannon's residence. On May 25, 2001, Joseph "Jody" Burns cooperated with four agents of the Mississippi Bureau of Narcotics to buy methamphetamine from Cannon at his residence at 434 Greenwood Lane in Brookhaven, Mississippi. Burns was given $500 to buy the substance and was wired so that the agents, who were positioned several hundred yards away, could hear the transaction. Upon completion of the transaction, the agents converged upon Cannon, who attempted to flee from his residence. The agents detained Burns, Cannon, and a third individual on the property named Becky Butler while securing a search warrant. Upon searching the residence, agents found a small amount of methamphetamine in the shop area, which constituted much of the bottom floor of Cannon's residence. Upon searching the area around his residence, agents found a camouflaged container that included baggies containing approximately 119 grams of methamphetamine. In the ensuing trial, Cannon was found guilty of unlawful delivery of methamphetamine and unlawful possession of more than thirty grams of methamphetamine with intent to distribute. The court allowed the amendment of the original indictment under UCCCR Rule 7.09 to charge Cannon as an habitual offender under Mississippi Code Annotated § 99-19-81 (Rev.2000). The trial court, under Mississippi Code Annotated § 41-29-139(B)(1), also doubled the sentence due to multi”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 919 So. 2d 913 - Cannon v. State

2. “Our Court has addressed the trial court's need to examine life expectancy during sentencing. In Handford v. State, 736 So.2d 1069, 1071 (¶ 8) (Miss. Ct.App.1999), this Court stated that "the trial court will make a record of and consider all relevant facts necessary to fix a sentence for a definite term [of years] reasonably expected to be less than life. The court should consider the age and life expectancy of the defendant and any other pertinent facts which would aid in fixing a proper sentence." (quoting Stewart v. State, 372 So.2d 257, 259 (Miss.1979)). However, in cases where the defendant has been convicted of multiple offenses, the requirement for a consideration of life expectancy "should not be taken to suggest that (1) he may not be subjected to full and appropriate punishment or (2) that his sentences may not be run consecutively." Mooneyham v. State, 842 So.2d 579, 589 (¶ 34) (Miss.Ct.App.2002) (citing Robert v. State, 756 So.2d 806 (¶ 14) (Miss.Ct.App.1999)).”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 919 So. 2d 913 - Cannon v. State

3. “the discretionary imposition of consecutive terms of sixty years for the two counts of [Cause No.] 01-150, without appropriate on the record findings, is excessive.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 919 So. 2d 913 - Cannon v. State