1999 Pa. Super. 2 - Commonwealth v. Rodda’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

42 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 42 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “Sentencing is a matter vested in the sound discretion of the sentencing judge, and a sentence will not be disturbed on appeal absent a manifest abuse of discretion. In this context, an abuse of discretion is not shown merely by an error in judgment. Rather, the appellant must establish, by reference to the record, that the sentencing court ignored or misapplied the law, exercised its judgment for reasons of partiality, prejudice, bias or ill will, or arrived at a manifestly unreasonable decision.”

   9 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 2003 Pa. Super. 290 - Commonwealth v. Anderson · 2006 Pa. Super. 17 - Commonwealth v. Fullin

2. “Appellate review of sentencing issues is prescribed by 42 Pa.C.S. § 9781, and is discretionary as to all aspects of sentencing except legality of the sentence. Commonwealth v. Tuladziecki, 513 Pa. 508 , 522 A.2d 17 (1987). We will grant allowance of appeal only where the appellant avers that there is a substantial question whether the sentence imposed is appropriate under the Sentencing Code, 42 Pa.C.S. §§ 9701-9799.6. [Commonwealth v.] Canfield, [ 432 Pa.Super. 496 ,] 639 A.2d [46] at 48 [Pa.Super. 1994] (quoting Commonwealth v. Jones, 418 Pa.Super. 93 , 613 A.2d 587, 590 (1992) (en banc)). We will be inclined to recognize a substantial question “where an appellant advances a colorable argument that the trial court’s actions are inconsistent with a specific provision of the Sentencing Code or contrary to the fundamental norms which underlie the sentencing process.” Id. Where the appellant asserts that the trial court failed to state sufficiently its reasons for imposing sentence outside the Sentencing Guidelines, we will conclude that the appellant has stated a substantial question for our review. Commonwealth v. Wagner, 702 A.2d 1084, 1086 (Pa.Super.1996 [1997]).... “Sentencing is a matter vested in the sound discretion of the sentencing judge, and a sentence will not be disturbed on appeal absent a manifest abuse of discretion.” [Commonwealth v.] Johnson, [ 446 Pa.Super. 192 ,] 666 A.2d [690] at 693 [Pa.Super. 1995]. In this context, an abuse of discretion is not shown mer”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 2000 Pa. Super. 154 - Commonwealth v. Hernandez

3. “The following standards are applicable in evaluating the merits of [an allegation that the Trial Court committed an abuse of discretion in sentencing outside the guideline ranges]: In sentencing outside the guidelines, the sentencing judge must follow the mandate of § 9721(b) of the Sentencing Code, 42 Pa.Cons.Stat.Ann. § 9701 et seq., which provides in pertinent part: In every case where the court imposes a sentence outside the sentencing guidelines adopted by the Pennsylvania Commission on Sentencing ... the court shall provide a contemporaneous written statement of the reason or reasons for the deviation from the guidelines. Failure to comply shall be grounds for vacating the sentence and re-sentencing the defendant.... The statute requires a trial judge who intends to sentence a defendant outside the guidelines to demonstrate on the record, as a proper starting point, his awareness of the sentencing guidelines. Having done so, the sentencing court may deviate from the guidelines, if necessary, to fashion a sentence which takes into account the protection of the public, the rehabilitative needs of the defendant, and the gravity of the particular offense as it relates to the impact on the life of the victim and the community, so long as he also states of record “the factual basis and specific reasons which compelled him to deviate from the guideline range.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 1999 Pa. Super. 219 - Commonwealth v. Davis