956 So. 2d 41 - State v. Wilson’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

11 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 11 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “The defendant also argues that he was entitled to a jury trial on the issue of his multiple offender status. He suggests that the multiple offender statute violates the Fourteenth and the Sixth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution because the statute allows a sentence to be increased beyond the statutory maximum without requiring the fact of the prior convictions to be submitted to the jury and proved beyond a reasonable doubt. The defendant relies upon the recent United States Supreme Court case of Shepard v. U.S., 544 U.S. 13 , 125 S.Ct. 1254 , 161 L.Ed.2d 205 (2005), in which the Court held that a sentencing court cannot look to police reports in making "generic burglary" decisions under the Armed Career Criminal Act. In its opinion, the Court noted that the issue raised The concern underlying Jones and Apprendi: the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments guarantee a jury standing between a defendant and the power of a state, and they guarantee a jury's finding of any disputed fact essential to increase the ceiling of a potential sentence. While the disputed fact here can be described as a fact about a prior conviction, it is too far removed from the conclusive significance of a prior judicial record, and too much like the findings subject to Jones and Apprendi, to say that Almendarez-Torres [ v. U.S., 523 U.S. 224 , 118 S.Ct. 1219 , 140 L.Ed.2d 350 (1998)] clearly authorizes a judge to resolve the dispute. The rule of reading statutes to avoid serious risks of unconstitutionality”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 998 So. 2d 278 - State v. Tassin

2. “State v. Neal, 00-0674 (La.6/29/01), 796 So.2d 649, 657 (citing State v. Captville, 448 So.2d 676, 678 (La. 1984)). See also State v. Sykes, 04-1199 (La.App. 4 Cir. 3/9/05) , 900 So.2d 156 . La.Rev.Stat. 14:62.3 prohibits”

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

3. “the intentional entry by a person without authorization into any inhabited dwelling or other structure belonging to another and used in whole or in part as a home or place of abode by a person.”

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