Johnson v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1997
Citation profile
35 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 35 later decisions — most recently July 2019 · most notably State Ex Rel. Zinna v. Steele (2010), State v. Johnson (2007)
35 state decisions
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
Relationships
Relies on Hill v. United States ex rel. Wampler · State v. Twenter · Gaddis v. United States · United States v. Raftis · State v. Williams
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 35 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“ambiguous or ... silent on a particular issue, nothing prevents an appellate court from examining the entire record to determine if the oral sentence can be unambiguously ascertained.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“As described above, the court explicitly made the required factual findings and the finding that [the defendant] was a persistent offender. Short of revoking these findings, the court could not have sentenced him as anything other than a persistent offender. Since the statute gave the sentencing court no discretion to decide what proportion of his sentence [the defendant] was required to serve, the fact that the court did not mention it during the formal pronouncement of sentence is irrelevant. Under this statute, the finding that a defendant is a repeat offender need not be restated during the oral pronouncement of sentence. To the extent that it holds otherwise, McCaine is overruled.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Parker · State v. Irvin“Assuming, without deciding, that the oral sentence always controls over the written sentence when they are irreconcilable, such a rule can have no application where either: (1) the record shows that the oral sentence was not materially different from the written one, or (2) the judge has no discretion to pronounce a sentence different from the written sentence. Both of these are true in this case.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Murphy v. State · Robinson v. State
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.