Smith v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1997
Citation profile
18 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 18 later decisions — most recently January 2023
18 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 Mehring v. State · Hicklin v. State · Wayt v. State · DeSpain v. State
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 18 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“A sentence will not be disturbed because of sentencing procedures unless the defendant can show an abuse of discretion, procedural conduct prejudicial to him, and cireumstances which manifest inherent unfairness and injustice, or conduct which offends the public sense of fair play.”
6 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Roeschlein v. State · Lee v. State“Smith's contention of prejudice is not supported by any evidence that the court relied on the erroneous information, and, in fact, is contradicted by the sentencing judge's accepting his corrections and then imposing a sentence less than that agreed to by Smith in his plea agreement. Wayt v. State, 912 P2d [1106], 1109 [(Wyo.1996) ] (appellant bears the burden of establishing this reliance). Nor do we find that sentencing Smith after learning of the report's severe deficiencies and without ordering a new report is improper and requires remanding for a new sentencing hearing. A sentencing judge's discretion permits him to order a new report or simply to accept corrections and proceed, as the judge did in this case. See Mehring v. State, 860 P.2d 1101, 1117-18 (Wyo.1993). As for Smith's request that we set standards to ensure accurate, nonargu-mentative presentence reports, our standard of judicial discretion accomplishes this objective while giving the sentencing judge the greatest amount of flexibility to exercise the appropriate action towards these kinds of transgressions by the State.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Carothers v. State“Sentencing decisions are within the broad discretion of the sentencing court.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Mitchell 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.