Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
10 North Carolina opinions name it 1 courts 2005–2006 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by North Carolina courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Blakely v. Washingtongreen2 sentences2006On appeal, defendant primarily contends that the trial court incorrectly calculated his prior record level and that he was sentenced in the aggravated range in violation of Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296 , 159 L. 2006On appeal, defendant primarily contends that the trial court incorrectly calculated his prior record level and that he was sentenced in the aggravated range in violation of Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296 , 159 L. | 6 | 9 |
State v. Allengreen2 sentences2005Since we grant Defendant a new trial, the trial court's error in sentencing Defendant in the aggravated range on factors not submitted to the jury should not arise again in light of State v. Allen, 359 N.C. 425, 439 , 615 S.E.2d 256, 265 (2005) and State v. Speight, 359 N.C. 602 , ___, 614 S.E.2d 262, 264 (2005). 2005Since we grant Defendant a new trial, the trial court's error in sentencing Defendant in the aggravated range on factors not submitted to the jury should not arise again in light of State v. Allen, 359 N.C. 425, 439 , 615 S.E.2d 256, 265 (2005) and State v. Speight, 359 N.C. 602 , ___, 614 S.E.2d 262, 264 (2005). | 1 | 2 |
State v. Speightgreen2 sentences2005Since we grant Defendant a new trial, the trial court's error in sentencing Defendant in the aggravated range on factors not submitted to the jury should not arise again in light of State v. Allen, 359 N.C. 425, 439 , 615 S.E.2d 256, 265 (2005) and State v. Speight, 359 N.C. 602 , ___, 614 S.E.2d 262, 264 (2005). 2005Since we grant Defendant a new trial, the trial court's error in sentencing Defendant in the aggravated range on factors not submitted to the jury should not arise again in light of State v. Allen, 359 N.C. 425, 439 , 615 S.E.2d 256, 265 (2005) and State v. Speight, 359 N.C. 602 , ___, 614 S.E.2d 262, 264 (2005). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in North Carolina. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.