2003 Pa. Super. 484 - Commonwealth v. Voss’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

4 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 4 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “[T]here is authority for the proposition that claims of illegality of sentence cannot be waived. See e.g. Commonwealth v. Diamond, 376 Pa.Super. 485 , 546 A.2d 628 , 631 n. 3 (1988) (citing Commonwealth v. Fulton, 315 Pa.Super. 420 , 462 A.2d 265 , 266 n. 4 (1983)). These cases, of course, predate the 1995 amendments to the PCRA which added the jurisdictional time limit to such proceedings.... While cases decided since the adoption of the 1995 amendments continue to invoke the 'legality of sentence can never be waived' language, see, e.g., Commonwealth v. Davis, 760 A.2d 406, 409 (Pa.Super.2000); Commonwealth v. Hockenberry, 455 Pa.Super. 626 , 689 A.2d 283, 288 , appeal denied, 548 Pa. 645 , 695 A.2d 784 (1997), in light of Fahy and its progeny, which emphasize the jurisdictional nature of the PCRA time limits, the broad language of Davis and Hockenberry may not accurately reflect current law.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 2004 Pa. Super. 133 - Commonwealth v. Beck

2. “challenges to the legality of a sentence [can] be raised within one year of the date that a defendant's conviction becomes final” because”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 2005 Pa. Super. 219 - Commonwealth v. Berry