2010 Pa. Super. 204 - Commonwealth v. Rhoades’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

1 federal appellate · 31 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 32 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “[this Court conducts] a four[-]part analysis to determine: (1) whether [A]ppel-lant has filed a timely notice of appeal, see Pa.R.A.P. 902 and 903; (2) whether the issue was properly preserved at sentencing or in a motion to reconsider and modify sentence, see Pa.R.Crim.P. [720]; (3) whether [Appellant’s brief has a fatal defect, Pa.R.A.P. 2119(f); and (4) whether there is a substantial question that the sentence appealed -from is not appropriate under the Sentencing Code, 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9781(b).”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Commonwealth v. Heaster · 2016 Pa. Super. 41 - Commonwealth v. Finnecy

2. “[T]he charges for aggravated assault at counts [six] and [seven], 18 Pa.[C.S.] §§ 2702(a)(1) and 2702(a)(4), respectively, did not share identical statutory elements .... [W]hen the two subsections are read together it, is apparent that subsection [four] contains an element that is not found in the greater offense of subsection [one]. Specifically, subsection [four] requires that the assault be caused or attempted “with a deadly weapon.” This element is not contained in subsection [one], which prohibits any attempt to cause or the causing of serious bodily injury but which does not limit itself to any particular mode of causing such an injury. It is therefore possible that a subsection [one] assault may be proved in some cases without necessarily proving a subsection [four] assault.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 2014 Pa. Super. 168 - Commonwealth v. Raven

3. “In reviewing an illegal sentence claim, ‘[t]he issue ... is a question of law and, as such, our scope of review is plenary and our standard of review is de novo.’ Section 9765 of our Judicial Code provides: 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. 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9765. This Court has assessed a merger issue by examining ‘whether the charges arose out of a single set of facts and whether all the statutory elements of one offense coincide with the statutory elements of the other offense.’”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 2011 Pa. Super. 103 - Commonwealth v. Ousley