People v. Levin

How courts have described this case

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

• noting that this is so because \[t]he imposition of a particular sentence usually is not regarded as an acquittal of any more severe sentence than could have been imposed\
• noting that this is so because “[t]he imposition of a particular sentence usually is not regarded as an acquittal of any more severe sentence than could have been imposed”
• sentencer of Class X offender, while required by statute to impose sentence from elevated range, is permitted discretion to determine appropriate sentence within that range
• in case of Class X offender, the sentencing court is \required by statute to impose a sentence from an elevated sentencing range\
• the double jeopardy clause of our state constitution is to be construed in the same manner as the double jeopardy-clause of the federal constitution
• in case of Class X offender, the sentencing court is “required by statute to impose a sentence from an elevated sentencing range”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).