2001 Pa. Super. 246 - Commonwealth v. Padden’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

1 federal appellate · 13 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 14 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “If a violation of Pa.R.Crim.P. 1405 occurs, the remedy of discharge is the appropriate one. Commonwealth v. Anders, 555 Pa. 467, 471 , 725 A.2d 170, 172 (1999). However, discharge is not automatic simply upon a showing of a violation of the sixty (60) day sentencing rule. Id. Rather, to determine whether discharge is appropriate, a trial court should inquire into the following factors: (1) the length of the delay falling outside of Rule 1405(A)’s 60-day-and-good-cause provisions, (2) the reason for the improper delay, (3) the defendant’s timely or untimely assertion of his rights, and (4) any resulting prejudice to the interests protected by his speedy trial and due process rights. Prejudice should not be presumed by the mere fact of an untimely sentence. Our approach has always been to determine whether there has in fact been prejudice, rather than to presume that prejudice exists. The court should examine the totality of the circumstances, as no one factor is necessary, dispositive, or of sufficient importance to prove a violation. Id. at 473 , 725 A.2d at 173 (citations omitted).”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 2011 Pa. Super. 259 - Commonwealth v. Kepner

2. “[In Dadario ] the Court stressed that the proper interpretation of Section 9543(a)(2)(ii) of the PCRA permits all constitutionally cognizable claims of ineffective assistance of counsel to be raised in a PCRA proceeding, 565 Pa. at 284-287 , 773 A.2d at 129-130 . The Court made clear that the phrase “so undermined the truth determining process” as used in Section 9543(a)(2)(ii) of the PCRA “merely represents a statutory adoption of the prejudice standard for Sixth Amendment standard [sic] for ineffectiveness claims as developed in Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 , 104 S.Ct. 2052 , 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984).” 565 Pa. at 286 , 773 A.2d at 130 . Thus the [Dadario ] Court held that: if a petitioner claims that he or she was denied the effective assistance of counsel in violation of the Sixth Amendment and Article I, Section 9 of the Pennsylvania Constitution, Section 9543(a)(2)(ii) of the PCRA allows the petitioner to seek relief.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 2002 Pa. Super. 393 - Commonwealth v. Prout

3. “i) the failure to raise the claim previously was the result of interference by government officials with the presentation of the claim in violation of the constitution or laws of this Commonwealth or the constitution or laws of the United States; (ii) the facts upon which the claim is predicated were unknown to the petitioner and could not have been ascertained by the exercise of due diligence; or (iii) the right asserted is a constitutional right that was recognized by the Supreme Court of the United States or the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania after the time period provided in this section and has been held by that court to apply retroactively. Icl. at (b)(1)(i-iii).”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Commonwealth v. Burrell