1999 Pa. Super. 219 - Commonwealth v. Davis’s Empirical Analysis
1999
Citation profile
13
cited by 13 later decisions
1
states following
November 2016
most recently cited
13 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on Commonwealth v. Tuladziecki · Commonwealth v. Devers · Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Jones · Commonwealth v. LaCava · Commonwealth v. Smith
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 13 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“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.C.S. § 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.” [Commonwealth v. Gibson ], 716 A.2d at 1276-1277 (quoting Commonwealth v. Johnson, 446 Pa.Super. 192 , 666 A.2d 690, 693 (1995))”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“(b) Stalking.—A person commits the crime of stalking when he engages in a course of conduct or repeatedly commits acts toward another person, including following the person without proper authority, under circumstances which demonstrate either of the following: (1) an intent to place the person in reasonable fear of bodily injury; or (2) an intent to cause substantial emotional distress to the person. (e.l) Course of conduct.—Acts indicating a course of conduct which occur in more than one jurisdiction may be used by any other jurisdiction in which an act occurred as evidence of a continuing pattern of conduct or a course of conduct, (f) “Course of conduct.” A pattern of actions composed of more than one act over a period of time, however short, evidencing a continuity of conduct. The term includes lewd, lascivious, threatening or obscene words, language, drawings, caricatures or actions, either in person or anonymously.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.