State v. Thomas’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

18 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 18 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “A. Any person who, after having been convicted within this state of a felony, ... thereafter commits any subsequent felony within this state, upon conviction of said felony, shall be punished as follows: (3)If the third felony is such that upon a first conviction, the offender would be punishable by imprisonment for any term less than this natural life then: (b) If the third felony and the two prior felonies are felonies | ¿defined as a crime of violence under R.S. 14:2(B), ... or any other crimes punishable by imprisonment for twelve year's or more, or any combination of such crimes, the person shall be imprisoned for the remainder of his natural life, without benefit of probation, parole, or suspension of sentence.”

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

2. “Because the sentence imposed for the habitual offender adjudication is prescribed by statute, the trial court’s compliance with La. C. Cr. P. art. 894.1 is not required. State v. Thomas, 41,734 (La.App. 2d Cir. 1/24/07), 948 So.2d 1151 , writ denied, 2007-0401 (La. 10/12/07), 965 So.2d 396 ; State v. Gay, 34,371 (La.App. 2d Cir. 4/4/01), 784 So.2d 714 . It would be an exercise in futility for the tidal court to discuss the factors enumerated in that article when the court had no discretion in sentencing the defendant. State v. Sewell, 35,549 (La.App. 2d Cir. 2/27/02), 811 So.2d 140 , writ denied, 2002-1098 (La. 3/21/03), 840 So.2d 535 .”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 207 So. 3d 436 - State v. Farry

3. “clearly and convincingly show that he is exceptional, which in this context means that because of unusual circumstances this defendant is a victim of the legislature's failure to assign sentences that are meaningfully tailored to the culpability of the offender, the gravity of the offense, and the circumstances of the case.”

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