976 So. 2d 398 - Ray v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

2 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 2 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “[T]he supreme court has made it clear that [PRS] is not limited to five years. “While the statute unquestionably limits to five years the period of time that the MDOC may supervise an offender who is on [PRS], the clear language of the statute does not limit the total number of years of [PRS] to five years.” Miller v. State, 875 So.2d 194, 199 (¶ 10) (Miss. 2004). The MDOC has the responsibility of monitoring the convicted defendant for the first five years[,] after which the court assumes that responsibility for the remainder of the term of [PRS]. Johnson v. State, 925 So.2d 86, 102 (¶ 30) (Miss.2006)- The statute imposes a limit on the burden that a court may place on the MDOC to supervise a defendant. But, as the supreme court noted, “the court is not so limited concerning the burden it may place on itself by way of monitoring a defendant’s behavior while the defendant is [on PRS].” Id.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 159 So. 3d 615 - Billy Wheater v. State of Mississippi

2. “The minimum requirements of due process, applicable in a revocation hearing, include written notice of the claimed violations of probation, disclosure to the probationer of the evidence against him, an opportunity to be heard and to present witnesses and evidence; the right to confront and cross-examine adverse witnesses, a neutral and detached hearing body, and a written statement by the fact-fmders as to the evidence relied on and the reasons for revoking probation.”

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