2006 Pa. Super. 48 - Commonwealth v. Kleinicke’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

1 federal appellate · 24 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 25 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “§ 780-113. Prohibited acts; penalties (a) The following acts and the causing thereof within the Commonwealth are hereby prohibited: (30) Except as authorized by this act, the manufacture, delivery, or possession with intent to manufacture or deliver, a controlled substance by a person not registered under this act, or a practitioner not registered or licensed by the appropriate State board, or knowingly creating, delivering or possessing with intent to deliver, a counterfeit controlled substance. (f) Any person who violates clause ... (30) of subsection (a) with respect to: (1) A controlled substance or counterfeit substance classified in Schedule I or II which is a narcotic drug, is guilty of a felony and upon conviction thereof shall be sentenced to imprisonment not exceeding fifteen years....”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 2007 Pa. Super. 378 - Commonwealth v. Slotcavage

2. “The rationale underlying Blakely[ 2 ] and Booker[ 3 ] seems undeniable, a system of sentencing that attributes a significant portion of a criminal defendant’s punishment to a finding of fact made by a judge upon a preponderance of the evidence standard as opposed to a finding by jury utilizing a beyond reasonable doubt standard is in derogation of a defendant’s right to trial by jury and violates due process even if the sentence ultimately imposed falls under the statutorily authorized limit for the crime in question.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
   e.g. 2014 Pa. Super. 289 - Commonwealth v. Vargas

3. “The mandatory provisions set forth in section 7508 do not increase the statutory maximum punishment or change the grade of the crime based upon the number of plants involved. To the contrary, section 7508 regulates only the minimum sentence. Whereas this section serves to limit the court’s discretion regarding the manner or method of imposing the sentence, it does not increase the maximum punishment for the conviction.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 2006 Pa. Super. 244 - Commonwealth v. Kearns