2003 Pa. Super. 306 - Commonwealth v. Bishop’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

15 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 16 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““[W]e conduct a four part analysis to determine: (1) whether appellant has filed a timely notice of appeal, see Pa. R.A.P. 902 and 903; (2) whether the issue was properly preserved at sentencing or in a motion to reconsider and modify sentence, see Pa. R.Crim.P. 1410 [now rule 720]; (3) whether appellant’s brief has a fatal defect, PA. R.A.P. 2119(a); and (4) whether there is a substantial question that the sentence appealed from is not appropriate under the sentencing code, 42 PA. C.S.A. §9781(b).””

   4 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Commonwealth v. Clotter · 2005 Pa. Super. 360 - Commonwealth v. Fiascki

2. “(1) petition the court for leave to withdraw stating that after making a conscientious examination of the record, counsel has determined the appeal would be frivolous; (2) file a brief referring to any issues that might arguably support the appeal, but which does not resemble a no-merit letter; and (3) furnish a copy of the brief to the defendant and advise him of his right to retain new counsel, proceed pro se, or raise any additional points he deems worthy of this Court’s attention.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 2007 Pa. Super. 237 - Commonwealth v. Curry · 2006 Pa. Super. 225 - Commonwealth v. Edwards

3. “a claim that the sentence imposed by the trial court was manifestly excessive is a challenge to the discretionary aspects of the sentence.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 2005 Pa. Super. 160 - Commonwealth v. Lee