922 So. 2d 577 - State v. Jefferson’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

31 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 32 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “Although Louisiana law favors concurrent sentences for crimes committed as part of a single transaction, a trial judge retains the discretion to impose consecutive sentences on the basis of other factors, including the offender’s past criminality and violence in the charged crimes. State v. Thomas, 98-1144, p. 1 (La.10/9/98), 719 So.2d 49 ; State v. Dempsey, 2002-1867, p. 5 (La.App. 4 Cir. 4/2/03), 844 So.2d 1037, 1040 , writ denied, 2003-1917 (La.6/25/04), 876 So.2d 823 . “Consecutive sentences for crimes arising out of the same act are not per se excessive if other appropriate factors are 'considered.” Dempsey , 2002-1867 at p. 5, 844 So.2d at 1040 . However, “[w]hen consecutive sentences are imposed for crimes arising out of the same act, the trial court must articulate particular justification for such a sentence beyond a mere articulation of the standard sentencing guidelines set forth in La.C.Cr.P. art. 894.1.” Id.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 171 So. 3d 1063 - State v. Bernard · 85 So. 3d 759 - State v. Williams

2. “If the defendant is convicted of two or more offenses based on the same act or transaction, or constituting parts of a common scheme or plan, the terms of imprisonment shall be served concurrently unless [17the court expressly directs that some or all be served consecutively. Other sentences of imprisonment shall be served consecutively unless the court expressly directs that some or all of them be served concurrently ...”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 116 So. 3d 928 - State v. Marcelin · 171 So. 3d 1063 - State v. Bernard

3. “`[w]hen the statute provides for a mandatory sentence, it is an exercise in futility for the trial court to enumerate its reasons for sentencing.'”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 45 So. 3d 173 - State v. Jenkins · 952 So. 2d 793 - State v. Douglas