State v. Clifton (2003)
green
· 35 citation events
across 2 courts.
Showing the 9 strongest citers on record
(one row per citing case, strongest signal kept).
Treatment trajectory · 2003 → 2026 · click a year to view the case as of then
200320142026
Sort:
By significance ·
Most recent
green
State v. McDonald (2004)
Id. at 91, 580 S.E.2d at 42.
green
State v. Dammons (2003)
App. at 96 , 580 S.E.2d at 46.
green
State v. Turner (2014)
App. 88, 95-96 , 580 S.E.2d 40, 46 (2003) (upholding a sentence of two consecutive terms of 168 to 211 months’ active imprisonment).
upholding a sentence of two consecutive terms of 168 to 211 months’ active imprisonment
green
State v. Wilkerson (2014)
App. 88, 94 , 580 S.E.2d 40, 45 (quoting State v. Ysaguire, 309 N.C. 780, 786 , 309 S.E.2d 436, 441 (1983)), cert. denied, 357 N.C. 463 , 586 S.E.2d 266 (2003). “[I]n the absence of legal error, it is not the role of the judiciary to engage in discretionary sentence reduction,” since “that power resides in the executive branch, as established by the state constitution and acts of the General Assembly,” Whitehead, 365 N.C. at 448 , 722 S.E.2d at 496 , and since “our General A…
green
State v. Crockett (2009)
App. 88, 96 , 580 S.E.2d 40, 46 (holding enhanced sentence of two consecutive terms of 168 to 211 months imprisonment for non-violent offenses was not cruel and unusual), cert. denied, 357 N.C. 463 , 586 S.E.2d 266 (2003); Hensley, 156 N.C.
green
State v. Hargrave (2009)
App. 88, 91 , 95 580 S.E.2d 40, 42, 45 (upholding a sentence of two consecutive terms of 168 to 211 months active imprisonment under the habitual felon statute where the defendant committed two counts of a non-violent Class H felony), cert. denied, 357 N.C. 463 , 586 S.E.2d 266 (2003); State v. Hensley, 156 N.C.
green
State v. Flemming (2005)
App. at 94 , 580 S.E.2d at 45 (internal citations omitted).
internal citations omitted
green
State v. Dawkins (2005)
App. at 96 , 580 S.E.2d at 46 ( quoting Ewing v. California, 538 U.S. 11 , ___, 155 L.
green
State v. McDonald (2004)
We stated, "our Court must continue to apply the grossly disproportionate principle, remembering that only in exceedingly unusual non-capital cases will the sentences imposed be so grossly disproportionate as to violate the Eighth Amendment's proscription of cruel and unusual punishment." Id. at ___, 580 S.E.2d at 45 (citations omitted).
citations omitted