5 canonical passages across 3 cases, quoted by 112 opinions in total. These passages cluster together because the same opinions keep quoting them side by side — they state parts of one doctrine. The anchor passage is from State v. Roth.
| # | Case | Flag | Canonical passage | Citers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | State v. Roth Anchor | green | “the application of the guidelines to the facts of the case makes the sentence clearly unreasonable so as to shock the judicial conscience.” | 61 |
| 2 | State v. Reinaldo Fuentes (070729) | green | “appellate courts review sentencing determinations in accordance with a deferential standard.” | 21 |
| 3 | State v. Reinaldo Fuentes (070729) | green | “not substitute our judgment for that of the sentencing court.” | 14 |
| 4 | State v. Roth | green | “shock the judicial conscience.” | 13 |
| 5 | State v. Patrick McFarlane(075938) | green | “critical to the sentencing process and appellate review is the need for the sentencing court to explain clearly why an aggravating or mitigating factor presented by the parties was found or rejected and how the factors were balanced to arrive at the sentence.” | 3 |
A red or yellow flag on a member means the underlying case has negative treatment — for those, check the case page before relying on the passage.