2003 Pa. Super. 410 - Commonwealth v. Watson’s Empirical Analysis
2003
Citation profile
30 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 30 later decisions — most recently August 2023 · most notably Commonwealth v. Holmes (2013), 2004 Pa. Super. 143 - Commonwealth v. McAfee (2004)
30 state decisions
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
Relationships
Relies on Strickland v. Washington · Commonwealth v. Grant · Commonwealth v. Bomar · Commonwealth v. Kimball · Commonwealth v. Lantzy
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 30 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““In order for an appellant to challenge the discretionary aspects of his sentence, he must first ‘set forth in his brief a concise statement of reasons relied upon for allowance of appeal with respect to the discretionary aspects of a sentence.’ Pa.R.A.P. 2119(f). Second, the appellant must show ‘that there is a substantial question that the sentence is not appropriate under the Sentencing Code.’... See also, 42 Pa.C.S. §9781(b). Moreover, ‘ [w]hether a substantial question has been raised is determined on a case by case basis.’... Also, ‘we will be inclined to allow an appeal where an appellant advances a colorable argument that the trial judge’s actions were: (1) inconsistent with a specific provision of the Sentencing Code; or (2) contrary to the fundamental norms which underlie the sentencing process.’...” Id. at 1284. (citations omitted)”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“the appellant must overcome the presumption of competence by showing that: (1) his underlying claim is of arguable merit; (2) the particular course of conduct pursued by counsel did not have some reasonable basis designed to effectuate his interests; and, (3) but for counsel’s ineffectiveness, there is a reasonable probability that the outcome of the challenged proceeding would have been different. A failure to satisfy any prong of the test for ineffectiveness will require rejection of the claim.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“[A] claim regarding the discretionary aspects of [the defendant's] sentence, raised in the context of an ineffectiveness claim, would be cognizable under the PCRA”
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.