Gargliano v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

6 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 6 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “(c)(1) A person who is convicted under subsection (b)(1)[ 3 ] or subsection (b)(2)[ 4 ] of this section, or of conspiracy to violate subsection (b)(1) or (b)(2) of this section shall be sentenced to imprisonment for not less than ten years if the person previously has been convicted: (i) Under subsection (b)(1) or subsection (b)(2) of this section; (ii) Of conspiracy to violate subsection (b)(1) or subsection (b)(2) of this section; or (iii) Of an offense under the laws of another state, the District of Columbia, or the United States that would be a violation of subsection (b)(1) or subsection (b)(2) if committed in this State.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Gargliano v. State · 108 Md. App. 108 - Warrick v. State

2. “In Collins v. State, 89 Md.App. 273, 291-4 [ 598 A.2d 8 ] (1991), we noted other distinctions between subsection (c) and subsections (d) and (e) — only second offenders are eligible for drug treatment in lieu of a mandatory sentence. This distinction might explain why the Legislature sought to impose more stringent requirements for third and fourth offenses and not for second offenses. Penalties for third and fourth convictions are much harsher than for a second offense, and three- and four-time offenders are not eligible for drug treatment in lieu of a mandatory sentence. Since those second offenders who tire deemed eligible for rehabilitation may be given drug treatment in lieu of a mandatory sentence, the more stringent standard for second offenders would serve no purpose.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 97 Md. App. 192 - State v. Polley

3. “certain mandatory minimum penalties for subsequent convictions of violations relating to controlled dangerous substances under certain circumstances; specifying that, for the purpose of certain subsequent offender penalties, certain offenses are prior offenses; prohibiting the suspension of certain penalties; providing for the construction of this Act; and generally relating to mandatory minimum penalties for subsequent convictions concerning specific controlled dangerous substances. (Underscoring omitted.)”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 97 Md. App. 192 - State v. Polley