Commonwealth v. Wolfe’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

25 state decisions

Most-quoted passages

The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 26 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “(a) Mandatory sentence. — Any person who is convicted of a violation of section 13(a)(30) of the act of April 14, 1972 (P.L. 233, No. 64), known as The Controlled Substance, Drug, Device and Cosmetic Act, when at the time of the offense the person or the person’s accomplice is in physical possession or control of a firearm, whether visible, concealed about the person or the person’s accomplice or within the actor’s or accomplice’s reach or in close proximity to the controlled substance, shall likewise be sentenced to a minimum sentence of at least five years of total confinement. [[Image here]] (c) Proof at sentencing. — Provisions of this section shall not be an element of the crime, and notice thereof to the defendant shall not be required prior to conviction, but reasonable notice of the Commonwealth’s intention to proceed under this section shall be provided after conviction and before sentencing. The applicability of this section shall be determined at sentencing. The court shall consider any evidence presented at trial and shall afford the Commonwealth and the defendant an opportunity to present any necessary additional evidence and shall determine, by a preponderance of the evidence, if this section is applicable.”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 2017 Pa. Super. 189 - Com. v. Kline, J., Sr. · 2017 Pa. Super. 212 - Commonwealth v. Weimer

2. “... On May 15, 2006, Appellant pleaded guilty to indecent assault and unlawful contact with a minor, and on November. 15, 2006, the trial court imposed an aggregate sentence of five years’ probation. Twelve days thereafter, Appellant filed a post-sentence motion seeking withdrawal of his “plea because he discovered that, as a condition of his probation,” his travel and contact with his minor children were limited and he was not permitted to consume alcohol. The trial court denied this motion on January 18, 2007. Appellant then filed a counseled application on June 6, 2007 to modify his probation, challenging the probationary condition that he first obtain permission before travelling outside the York County area, and seeking instead merely to provide- notice before traveling. The court denied this application on June 8, 2007. Appellant took appeals from both orders which were consolidated by this Court. The Commonwealth argued that Appellant’s motion, to modify the conditions of his “probation was akin to an untimely post-sentence motion, and therefore, [his] appeal from the ... order, which denied the application, was also untimely.” On September 19, 2007, this Court issued an order quashing that appeal. However, in an unpublished memorandum dated August 4, 2008, this Court declined to find Appellant’s appeal from the latter order untimely. We reasoned that the court had jurisdiction under 42 Pa.C.S. § 9771(a) to consider Appellant’s second application for relief, “which ess”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Com. v. Mathias, S., Jr.