Skip to main content
Supreme Court· 6/29/2000

Martinez v. Massachusetts

Citations

  • 530 U.S. 1281

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

  • “the repeat-offender statutes are sentence enhancement provisions only and do not identify a freestanding crime”
  • “the repeat-offender statutes are sentence enhancement provisions only and do not identify a freestanding crime”
  • “if the [repeat-offender] indictment is legally deficient, the court is without jurisdiction to try the case”
  • substantive drug offense and repeat-offender penalty-enhancement provision properly set forth in separate counts of a single indictment
  • “[T]he counts for the current offense and for the repeat offense are viewed as parts of one indictment and charge only one crime with a sentence enhancement provision”
  • undercover trooper told defendant he wanted to purchase cocaine; defendant entered trooper’s car and instructed him to stop by a woman, the seller, standing on sidewalk; and defendant told seller what they wanted

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

22 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Other cases named Martinez v. Massachusetts

1 other CourtListener record shares this case name.

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.