2004 Pa. Super. 379 - Commonwealth v. Pettus’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

2 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 2 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “Appellant was incarcerated for the instant charges on 3/24/06, and never posted bail. He remained incarcerated on these charges through sentencing on 8/07/06, however, at sentencing, the Court did not give Appellant credit for all the time he spent in custody as a result of these charges. On 6/29/05, Appellant was arrested for unrelated charges, and was out on bail when he was arrested and incarcerated for these instant charges. On 5/15/06, Appellant was sentenced on these prior charges to 6 months [“]Immediate Work Release!.”] However, because Appellant had these instant charges still pending, he was not permitted to start serving the sentence of Immediate Work Release, and consequently, remained incarcerated in Le-high County Prison “as a result of the (instant) criminal charges for which a (this) prison sentence is imposed or as a result of the conduct on which such charge is based.” [ ] 42 Pa.C.S. § 9760(1).... Appellant was not given credit towards this instant sentence from 5/15/06 through 8/07/06. Appellant asserts that, because he remained in custody “as a result of (these) criminal charges!,]” [ ] he is entitled to have this pre-trial/sentencing incarceration credited towards his current sentence for this time spent in custody between 5/15/06 and 8/07/06.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 2008 Pa. Super. 84 - Commonwealth v. Ede