State v. Powell’s Empirical Analysis
1998
Citation profile
5 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 5 later decisions — most recently February 2013
5 state decisions
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
Relationships
Relies on State v. Brooks · State v. Babbel · State v. Powell · Martinez v. Smith
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 5 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Where a conviction or sentence has been set aside on direct review ..., the court shall not impose a [more severe] sentence for the same offense....”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“While I believe that this case is readily distinguishable from its companion case State v. Maguire, [ 957 P.2d 598 (1998),] I dissent here for the same reason that I did in Maguire . I would hold that the court of appeals, when it granted defendant Powell’s Motion to Withdraw Plea, did set aside “on direct review” a conviction or sentence as contemplated by section 76-3-405 of the Utah Code. The majority holds that Powell’s conviction to a harsher sentence after his withdrawal of a plea bargain and a subsequent trial did not violate section 76-3-405 of the Utah Code. I would hold that the harsher sentencing violated section 76-3-405. As in State v. Maguire, the majority-resorts to unlikely semantic distinctions to avoid the plain language of the statute. The majority thereby amends the statute to accomplish the same end that the legislature has since accomplished by amending section 76-3-405 to preclude plea bargains. Utah Code Ann. § 76-3-405 (2)(b) (Supp.1997). We. should not ignore plain language in order to rectify a presumed mistake by the original drafting legislators.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Mara“We also believe that it would be unwise to hold that a sentence imposed pursuant to a plea agreement should limit a sentence subsequently imposed at trial after defendant has withdrawn his plea. Plea bargains are entered into so that both sides may avoid the expense and uncertainty of a trial. In exchange for conserving State resources, defendant usually receives a lower charge or lesser sentence. Thus, it would be anomalous to allow a defendant to keep the benefit of an agreement he repudiated while requiring the State to proceed to trial and prove its case.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.