Ware v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

4 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 4 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““ ‘It is well settled that “[w]here a trial judge imposes a sentence within the statutory range, this Court will not disturb that sentence on appeal absent a showing of an abuse of the trial judge’s discretion.” Alderman v. State, 615 So.2d 640, 649 (Ala.Crim.App.1992). “The exception to this general rule is that ‘the appellate courts may review a sentence, which, although within the prescribed limitations, is so disproportionate to the offense charged that it constitutes a violation of a defendant’s Eighth Amendment rights.’ ” Brown [v. State, 611 So.2d 1194 ,] 1197, n. 6 [ (Ala.Crim.App.1992) ], quoting Ex parte Maddox, 502 So.2d 786, 789 (Ala.1986).” “Adams v. State, 815 So.2d 583, 585 (Ala.Crim.App.2001). “Ware was given a heightened sentence under the Habitual Felony Offender Act, § 13A-5-9, Ala.Code 1975. Legislatively mandated sentences carry a presumption of validity. McLester v. State, 460 So.2d 870, 874 (Ala.Crim.App.1984). ‘ “Reviewing courts, of course, should grant substantial deference to the broad authority that legislatures necessarily possess in determining the types and limits of punishments for crimes...."' 460 So.2d at 874 , quoting Solem v. Helm, 463 U.S. 277, 290 , 103 S.Ct. 3001 , 77 L.Ed.2d 637 (1983). ‘ “ ‘Where the punishment prescribed by the legislature is severe merely by reason of its extent, as distinguished from its nature, there is no collision with the Eighth Amendment.’ ” ’ Wilson v. State, 427 So.2d 148, 152 (Ala.Crim.App.1983) (quoting Wat”

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

2. “"`"The test used in determining the sufficiency of evidence to sustain a conviction is whether, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, a rational finder of fact could have found the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt." ` Nunn v. State , 697 So.2d 497 , 498 (Ala.Crim.App. 1997) (quoting O'Neal v. State , 602 So.2d 462 , 464 (Ala.Crim.App. 1992)). ` "When there is legal evidence from which the jury could, by fair inference, find the defendant guilty, the trial court should submit [the case] to the jury, and, in such a case, this court will not disturb the trial court's decision."' Farrior v. State , 728 So.2d 691 , 696 (Ala.Crim.App. 1998) (quoting Ward v. State , 557 So.2d 848 , 850 (Ala.Crim.App. 1990)). `The role of appellate courts is not to say what the facts are. Our role . . . is to judge whether the evidence is legally sufficient to allow submission of an issue for decision [by] the jury.' Ex parte Bankston , 358 So.2d 1040 , 1042 (Ala. 1978)."”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 42 So. 3d 777 - Chapman v. State

3. “The determination of the credibility and veracity of the witnesses and evidence is the responsibility of the trial court, not the appellate court.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 39 So. 3d 214 - State v. JLD