944 So. 2d 162 - Ferrell v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

7 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 7 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “"Although the circuit court found that the appellant satisfied the first two eligibility requirements set forth in Holt , it did not determine whether he was a nonviolent offender. Rather, it determined that he was not eligible for reconsideration of his sentence because he had previously been paroled. Once eligibility has been determined, the fact that an offender has previously been paroled may be a relevant and material factor to consider when deciding whether to resentence the offender. However, it is not relevant when making the initial determination of whether the offender is eligible to have his sentence reconsidered. Because the circuit court erroneously based its determination that the appellant was not eligible to have his sentence reconsidered on the fact that he had previously been paroled, it erred *Page 1235 when it denied his motion on that ground."”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 967 So. 2d 729 - Thompson v. State · 950 So. 2d 1233 - Vinson v. State

2. “"There are three requirements for eligibility to have a sentence reconsidered under § 13A-5-9.1 : (1) the inmate was sentenced before May 25, 2000, the date the 2000 amendment to the HFOA became effective; (2) the inmate was sentenced to life imprisonment without the possibility of parole pursuant to § 13A-5-9 (c)(3) and had no prior Class A felony convictions or was sentenced to life imprisonment pursuant to § 13A-5-9 (c)(2), see Prestwood[v. State , 915 So.2d 580 (Ala.Crim.App. 2005)]; and (3) the inmate is a `nonviolent convicted offender.' An inmate must satisfy all three requirements before he or she is eligible for reconsideration of sentence under § 13A-5-9.1."”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 967 So. 2d 729 - Thompson v. State · 947 So. 2d 436 - White v. State