919 So. 2d 1129 - Fowler 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. “Although the judge did not explicitly state that he was imposing a harsher sentence for armed robbery because of the new evidence at the sentencing hearing, the judge did impose this enhanced sentence immediately after declaring that Fowler was guilty of attempted murder. In [Alabama v.] Smith, 490 U.S. [794,] 799, 109 S.Ct. 2201 , 104 L.Ed.2d 865 [ (1989) ], the Supreme Court held that the presumption of vindictiveness must be limited to those situations in which there is a “reasonable likelihood that the increase in sentence is the product of actual vindictiveness on the part of the sentencing authority[;][w]hen there is no such reasonable likelihood, the burden of proof remains on the defendant^]” ([q]uoting United States v. Goodwin, 457 U.S. 368, 373 , 102 S.Ct. 2485 , 73 L.Ed.2d 74 , ... (1982)). Under these particular facts, we are unable to find that the circuit judge’s enhanced sentence for armed robbery was the result of vindictiveness. Therefore, we affirm.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 17 So. 3d 1149 - Davis v. State

2. “(a) The trial court must affirmatively state in the record his reasons for the harsher sentence. (b) The reasons must be based upon objective information concerning identifiable conduct on the part of the defendant which occurred after the time of the original sentencing proceeding, or based upon objective information concerning events which occurred after the time of the original sentencing proceeding that may have thrown new light upon the defendant’s life, health, habits, conduct, or mental and moral propensities. (c) The factual data upon which the increased sentence is based must be made a part of the record. (d) This information and data upon which the judge bases his sentence may come to the judge’s attention from evidence adduced at the second trial itself, from a new presentencing investigation, from the defendant’s prison record, or possibly from other sources.”

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

3. “When Fowler entered his first guilty plea and the judge sentenced Fowler to fifteen years for armed robbery, there was no indication that the judge was aware that the State also indicted Fowler for attempted murder. At the second sentencing hearing the judge was made aware of new evidence that led him to believe that Fowler’s conduct was more heinous than he originally realized.... [T]his new evidence threw new light upon Fowler’s life, health, habits, conduct, and mental or moral propensities.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 17 So. 3d 1149 - Davis v. State