2006 Pa. Super. 95 - Commonwealth v. Jacobs’s Empirical Analysis
2006
Citation profile
17
cited by 17 later decisions
1
states following
August 2014
most recently cited
16 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on Apprendi v. New Jersey · Blakely v. Washington · Hill v. United States · Green v. United States · Commonwealth v. Clair
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 17 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[T]his Court sitting en banc may overrule the decision of a three-judge panel of this Court”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence“The Court came to this conclusion even though trial courts do not, of course, have the “discretion” to make patent and obvious mathematical errors that work to the detriment of criminal defendants.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“Based on the foregoing authorities, we conclude that a denial of the right of allocution does not create a non-waivable challenge to the legality of the sentence. The trial court certainly had the statutory authority to impose the sentence that it did. Moreover, the sentence does not implicate issues of merger, or any issues involving Apprendi [u New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 , 120 S.Ct. 2348 , 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000) ]. In short, Appellant’s claim does not directly implicate the authority of the court to impose either the structure or term of the sentence itself. Rather, allocution is an underlying process through which the defendant is given the opportunity to speak, and through which the court may be inclined to grant leniency. Failure to grant a defendant this important right undoubtedly constitutes legal error. [Commonwealth v.] Thomas [ 520 Pa. 206 , 553 A.2d 918, 919 (1989)]. On the other hand, like most legal errors, it is nevertheless waivable under Pennsylvania law. Accordingly, we hold that Appellant’s allocution claim is waived because it was not raised with the trial court.”
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.