Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 961 P.2d 563 - People v. Hoefer

People v. Hoefer’s Empirical Analysis

1998

Citation profile

12
cited by 12 later decisions
1
states following
August 2020
most recently cited

11 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 12 later decisions — most recently August 2020

11 state decisions

601998200020102020decided

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 Boyd v. Brown · People v. Frye · People v. White · Erickson v. People · People v. District Court in & for the City & County of Denver

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

  1. “(l)(a) Except as otherwise provided [concerning crimes of violence, habitual sex offenders against children, HIV-positive defendants, and probationary sentences], the district court having jurisdiction shall sentence a sex offender to the custody of the department for an indeterminate term of at least the minimum of the presumptive range specified in section 18-1-105, C.R.S., for the level of offense committed and a maximum of the sex offender’s natural life, (b) If the sex offender committed a sex offense that constitutes a crime of violence, as defined in section 16-11-309, the district court shall sentence the sex offender to the custody of the department for an indeterminate term of at least the midpoint in the presumptive range for the level of offense committed and a maximum of the sex offender’s natural life.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. “crime and adjudicated as a habitual criminal). Thus, we conclude the court properly calculated Ortega's sentence by increasing the maximum presumptive range sentence to sixteen years and then applying the mandatory language of section 18-1.3-401(8)(d), which requires a sentence of between ten years (the midpoint between four and sixteen) and thirty-two years (twice the maximum of sixteen) in the DOC. Accordingly, because the nineteen-year sentence was within the sentencing range authorized by statute, it was not”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. “must also find the defendant guilty of at least one count of sexual assault on a child by one in a position of trust (counts two, three or four).”
    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.