1999 Pa. Super. 166 - Commonwealth v. Ware’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

14 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 15 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “Clearly, the order revoking parole does not impose a new sentence; it requires appellant, rather, to serve the balance of a valid sentence previously imposed. See Commonwealth v. Carter, 336 Pa.Super. 275 , 281 n. 2, 485 A.2d 802 , 805 n. 2 (1984). Moreover, such a re-committal is just that—a recommittal and not a sentence. Abraham v. Dept. of Corrections, 150 Pa.Cmwlth. 81, 97 , 615 A.2d 814, 822 (1992). Further, at a “Violation of Parole” hearing, the court is not free to give a new sentence. The power of the court after a finding of violation of parole in cases not under the control of the State Board of Parole is “to recommit to jail....” See Commonwealth v. Fair, 345 Pa.Super. 61, 64 , 497 A.2d 643, 645 (1985), citing 61 P.S. § 314. There is no authority for giving a new sentence with a minimum and maximum. Id. at 61, 497 A.2d at 645 . Therefore, an appellant contesting a rev ocation of parole need not comply with the provisions of Pa.R.A.P. 2119(f) by first articulating a substantial question regarding the discretionary aspects of sentencing. ... The sole issue on appeal is whether the trial court erred, as a matter of law, in revoking appellant’s parole and committing him to a term of total confinement.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 2004 Pa. Super. 340 - Commonwealth v. Shimonvich · 2004 Pa. Super. 463 - Commonwealth v. Galletta