2008 Pa. Super. 232 - Commonwealth v. Williams’s Empirical Analysis
2008
Citation profile
4
cited by 4 later decisions
1
states following
November 2022
most recently cited
4 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on Klusman v. Bucks County Court of Common Pleas · Commonwealth v. Anderson · Commonwealth v. Williams · Commonwealth v. Thornhill · 382 Pa. Super. 59 - Commonwealth v. Swavely
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.
“[I]n all criminal cases, the same facts may support multiple convictions and separate sentences for each conviction except in cases where the offenses are greater and lesser included offenses. The Supreme Court [has] further define[d] the same facts as follows: any act or acts which the accused has performed and any intent which the accused has manifested, regardless of whether these acts ■ and intents are part of one criminal plan, scheme, transaction or encounter, or multiple criminal plans, sehemes[,] transactions or encounters. Regarding the consideration of greater and lesser included offenses, [i]f each offense requires proof of a fact which the other does not, the offenses are not the same for double jeopardy [and merger] purposes, event though arising from the same conduct or episode.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“A claim that the trial court imposed an illegal sentence by failing to merge sentences is a question of law. Accordingly, our standard of review is plenary. The merger doctrine is essentially a rule of statutory construction designed to determine whether the legislature intended for the punishment of one offense to encompass that for another offense arising from the same criminal act or transaction.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“No crimes shall merge for sentencing purposes unless the crimes arise from a single criminal act and all of the statutory elements of one offense are included in the statutory elements of the other offense. Where crimes merge for sentencing purposes, the court may sentence the defendant only on the higher graded offense.”
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.