2000 Pa. Super. 152 - Commonwealth v. Fish’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

1 federal appellate · 18 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 19 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “Our review is limited to determining the validity of the probation revocation proceedings and the authority of the sentencing court to consider the same sentencing alternatives that it had at the time of the initial sentencing. 42 Pa. C.S. § 9771(b). See also Commonwealth v. Gheen, 455 Pa.Super. 499, 688 A.2d 1206, 1207 (1997) (the scope of review in an appeal following a sentence imposed after probation revocation is limited to the validity of the revocation proceedings and the legality of the judgment of sentence). Also, upon sentencing following a revocation of probation, the trial court is limited only by the maximum sentence that it could have imposed originally at the time of the probationary sentence. Id., 688 A.2d at 1207-1208 . Accord Commonwealth v. Ware, 787 A.2d 251, 254 (Pa.Super.1999).”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 2006 Pa. Super. 336 - Commonwealth v. MacGregor · 2001 Pa. Super. 77 - Commonwealth v. Coolbaugh

2. “[w]e must accord the sentencing court great weight as it is in the best position to view the defendant’s character, displays of remorse, defiance or indifference, and the overall effect and nature of the crime. An appellate court will not disturb the lower courts judgment absent a manifest abuse of discretion. In order to constitute an abuse of discretion, a sentence must either exceed the statutory limits or be so manifestly excessive as to constitute an abuse of discretion. Further, a sentence should not be disturbed where it is evident that the sentencing court was aware of sentencing considerations and weighed the considerations in a meaningful fashion.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 2009 Pa. Super. 14 - Commonwealth v. Miller · 2008 Pa. Super. 271 - Commonwealth v. Ahmad

3. “Our review is limited to determining the validity of the probation revocation proceedings and the authority of the sentencing court to consider the same sentencing alternatives that it had at the time of the initial sentencing.... Also, upon sentencing following a revocation of probation, the trial court is limited only by the maximum sentence that it could have imposed originally at the time of the probationary sentence.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 2001 Pa. Super. 271 - Commonwealth v. Bowser