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.
9 Maine opinions name it 2 courts 1993–2018 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Maine 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 |
|---|---|---|
State v. Hallowellgreen2 sentences2006State v. Soucy, 2006 ME 8, ¶ 11 , 890 A.2d 719, 723 . “[W]e review the sentence irrespective of the sentencing court’s findings,” State v. King, 1998 ME 60, ¶ 15 , 708 A.2d 1014, 1018 , but it is not enough that we “might have passed a different sentence, rather it is only when a sentence appears to err in principle that we will alter it,” State v. Hallowell, 577 A.2d 778, 781 (Me.1990). [¶ 9] At step one, the sentencing court sets the defendant’s basic period of incarceration by referring to the nature and seriousness of the crime. 17-A M.R.S. § 1252-C(1); State v. Sweet, 2000 ME 14, ¶ 11 , 7 1997State v. Wood, 662 A.2d 908, 913 (Me.1995); see also State v. Hallowell, 577 A.2d 778, 781 (Me.1990) (it is not enough that we might have imposed a different sentenee;only when the sentence appears to have erred in principle will we alter it). *512 [¶ 4] When imposing a sentence upon defendant for a Class A manslaughter, the court analyzed defendant’s conduct as follows: The trial court first determines the basic period of incarceration by reference to the offender’s criminal conduct.... | 2 | 2 |
State v. Ardolinogreen2 sentences1998See State v. Ardolino, 1997 ME 141, ¶¶ 23, 25 , 697 A.2d 73, 80-81 . 1998See State v. Ardolino, 1997 ME 141, ¶¶ 23, 25 , 697 A.2d 73, 80-81 . | 1 | 1 |
State v. Lilleygreen1 sentence1997We have previously stated that in reaching its determination the trial court is to compare the defendant’s conduct “on a scale of seriousness against all possible means of committing the crime in order to determine which acts deserve the most punishment,” State v. Lilley, 624 A.2d 935, 936 (Me.1993), and the basic period of incarceration imposed for similar conduct of other offenders convicted of offenses within the same classification. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Woodgreen1 sentence1997State v. Wood, 662 A.2d 908, 913 (Me.1995); see also State v. Hallowell, 577 A.2d 778, 781 (Me.1990) (it is not enough that we might have imposed a different sentenee;only when the sentence appears to have erred in principle will we alter it). *512 [¶ 4] When imposing a sentence upon defendant for a Class A manslaughter, the court analyzed defendant’s conduct as follows: The trial court first determines the basic period of incarceration by reference to the offender’s criminal conduct.... | 1 | 1 |
State v. Corbettgreen2 sentences1994Application of the considerations articulated in State v. Corbett, 618 A.2d at 224-25 , however, leads us to conclude that the court’s selection of the statutory maximum sentence that could be imposed for this type of Class A offense was a misapplication of principle. 5 The entry is: Sentence vacated. 1994Application of the considerations articulated in State v. Corbett, 618 A.2d at 224-25 , however, leads us to conclude that the court's selection of the statutory maximum sentence that could be imposed for this type of Class A offense was a misapplication of principle. [5] The entry is: Sentence vacated. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Lewisgreen2 sentences1994State v. Corbett, 618 A.2d 222, 223 (Me.1992); State v. Lewis, 590 A.2d 149, 150 (Me.1991). 1994State v. Corbett, 618 A.2d 222, 223 (Me.1992); State v. Lewis, 590 A.2d 149, 150 (Me.1991). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Maine. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
State v. Hewey
green
2 sentences1997State v. Hewey, 622 A.2d at 1155 . 1993He argues, inter alia, that the court did not observe the sentencing framework set forth in State v. Hewey, 622 A.2d 1151 (Me.1993). | 2 | 1993–1997 |
State v. Reese
green
2 sentences2018State v. Reese , 2010 ME 30 , ¶¶ 22-23, 991 A.2d 806 . 2018State v. Reese , 2010 ME 30 , ¶¶ 22-23, 991 A.2d 806 . | 1 | 2018–2018 |
State v. Frechette
green
2 sentences2007Addressing a misapplication of principle challenge to Frechette's sentencing, the Law Court held that "the court correctly approached its sentencing in this case, and some consecutive sentences are statutorily authorized." 645 A.2d at 1129 . 2007Addressing a misapplication of principle challenge to Fre-chette’s sentencing, the Law Court held that “the court correctly approached its sentencing in this case, and some consecutive sentences are statutorily authorized.” 645 A.2d at 1129 . | 1 | 2007–2007 |
State v. Sweet
green
2 sentences2006State v. Soucy, 2006 ME 8, ¶ 11 , 890 A.2d 719, 723 . “[W]e review the sentence irrespective of the sentencing court’s findings,” State v. King, 1998 ME 60, ¶ 15 , 708 A.2d 1014, 1018 , but it is not enough that we “might have passed a different sentence, rather it is only when a sentence appears to err in principle that we will alter it,” State v. Hallowell, 577 A.2d 778, 781 (Me.1990). [¶ 9] At step one, the sentencing court sets the defendant’s basic period of incarceration by referring to the nature and seriousness of the crime. 17-A M.R.S. § 1252-C(1); State v. Sweet, 2000 ME 14, ¶ 11 , 7 2006State v. Soucy, 2006 ME 8, ¶ 11 , 890 A.2d 719, 723 . “[W]e review the sentence irrespective of the sentencing court’s findings,” State v. King, 1998 ME 60, ¶ 15 , 708 A.2d 1014, 1018 , but it is not enough that we “might have passed a different sentence, rather it is only when a sentence appears to err in principle that we will alter it,” State v. Hallowell, 577 A.2d 778, 781 (Me.1990). [¶ 9] At step one, the sentencing court sets the defendant’s basic period of incarceration by referring to the nature and seriousness of the crime. 17-A M.R.S. § 1252-C(1); State v. Sweet, 2000 ME 14, ¶ 11 , 7 | 1 | 2006–2006 |
State v. Soucy
green
2 sentences2006State v. Soucy, 2006 ME 8, ¶ 11 , 890 A.2d 719, 723 . “[W]e review the sentence irrespective of the sentencing court’s findings,” State v. King, 1998 ME 60, ¶ 15 , 708 A.2d 1014, 1018 , but it is not enough that we “might have passed a different sentence, rather it is only when a sentence appears to err in principle that we will alter it,” State v. Hallowell, 577 A.2d 778, 781 (Me.1990). [¶ 9] At step one, the sentencing court sets the defendant’s basic period of incarceration by referring to the nature and seriousness of the crime. 17-A M.R.S. § 1252-C(1); State v. Sweet, 2000 ME 14, ¶ 11 , 7 2006State v. Soucy, 2006 ME 8, ¶ 11 , 890 A.2d 719, 723 . “[W]e review the sentence irrespective of the sentencing court’s findings,” State v. King, 1998 ME 60, ¶ 15 , 708 A.2d 1014, 1018 , but it is not enough that we “might have passed a different sentence, rather it is only when a sentence appears to err in principle that we will alter it,” State v. Hallowell, 577 A.2d 778, 781 (Me.1990). [¶ 9] At step one, the sentencing court sets the defendant’s basic period of incarceration by referring to the nature and seriousness of the crime. 17-A M.R.S. § 1252-C(1); State v. Sweet, 2000 ME 14, ¶ 11 , 7 | 1 | 2006–2006 |
State v. King
green
2 sentences2006State v. Soucy, 2006 ME 8, ¶ 11 , 890 A.2d 719, 723 . “[W]e review the sentence irrespective of the sentencing court’s findings,” State v. King, 1998 ME 60, ¶ 15 , 708 A.2d 1014, 1018 , but it is not enough that we “might have passed a different sentence, rather it is only when a sentence appears to err in principle that we will alter it,” State v. Hallowell, 577 A.2d 778, 781 (Me.1990). [¶ 9] At step one, the sentencing court sets the defendant’s basic period of incarceration by referring to the nature and seriousness of the crime. 17-A M.R.S. § 1252-C(1); State v. Sweet, 2000 ME 14, ¶ 11 , 7 2006State v. Soucy, 2006 ME 8, ¶ 11 , 890 A.2d 719, 723 . “[W]e review the sentence irrespective of the sentencing court’s findings,” State v. King, 1998 ME 60, ¶ 15 , 708 A.2d 1014, 1018 , but it is not enough that we “might have passed a different sentence, rather it is only when a sentence appears to err in principle that we will alter it,” State v. Hallowell, 577 A.2d 778, 781 (Me.1990). [¶ 9] At step one, the sentencing court sets the defendant’s basic period of incarceration by referring to the nature and seriousness of the crime. 17-A M.R.S. § 1252-C(1); State v. Sweet, 2000 ME 14, ¶ 11 , 7 | 1 | 2006–2006 |
York v. Town of Ogunquit
green
2 sentences2004Given that a reasonable mind could not conclude that the Board’s decision on this matter was legally sound or supported by the record, see York, 2001 ME 53 at I 6, 769 A.2d at 175 , and that the Petitioner has met her burden of proving the existence of a unique circumstance on her property, the Board’s refusal to grant the variance on this basis cannot be sustained. 2004Given that a reasonable mind could not conclude that the Board’s decision on this matter was legally sound or supported by the record, see York, 2001 ME 53 at I 6, 769 A.2d at 175 , and that the Petitioner has met her burden of proving the existence of a unique circumstance on her property, the Board’s refusal to grant the variance on this basis cannot be sustained. | 1 | 2004–2004 |
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.
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.