Commonwealth v. Moyer’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

8 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 10 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “Next, Appellant argues that the trial court erred in declining to vacate her DUI conviction under Birchfield . As explained above, the United States Supreme Court handed down Birchfield two days after Appellant's sentence. Appellant never challenged the warrantless blood draw during trial, and did not raise any issue under Birchfield until her nunc pro tunc post-sentence motion. In Pennsylvania, it has long been the rule that criminal defendants are not entitled to retroactive application of a new constitutional rule unless they raise and preserve the issue during trial. Commonwealth v. Newman , 99 A.3d 86 , 90 (Pa. Super. 2014) ( en banc ), appeal denied , 632 Pa. 693 , 121 A.3d 496 (2014 [2015] ). The Newman Court relied on Commonwealth v. Cabeza , 503 Pa. 228 , 469 A.2d 146 , 148 (1983). There, the Supreme Court wrote: [W]here an appellate decision overrules prior law and announces a new principle, unless the decision specifically declares the ruling to be prospective only, the new rule is to be applied retroactively to cases where the issue in question is properly preserved at all stages of adjudication up to and including any direct appeal. Id . (emphasis added). Instantly, Appellant failed to challenge the warrantless blood draw at any stage of the litigation prior to her nunc pro tunc post-sentence motion. Thus, she is not entitled to retroactive application of Birchfield . Appellant argues that she should not have been required to anticipate the United States Supreme ”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Com. v. Kehr, II, J.

2. “asking the trial court to vacate her DUI conviction under Birchfield .”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Com. v. Kehr, II, J.