2011 Pa. Super. 10 - Commonwealth v. Borrin’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

12 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 13 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “AND NOW, this 12[th] day of [June], 2009, the District Attorney of Luzerne County’s Petition to Clarify Sentence is hereby GRANTED. Defendant is sentenced as follows: a. Count One Homicide by Vehicle while DUI -» 36 to 72 months; b. Count Two Homicide by Vehicle -» merges with Count One; c. Count Three Aggravated Assault by Vehicle While DUI -> 16-32 months consecutive to Count One; d. Count Four Aggravated Assault by Vehicle While DUI -> 12-24 months consecutive to Counts One and Three; e. Count Five Aggravated Assault by Vehicle While DUI -> 12-24 months consecutive to Counts One, Three and Four; f. Count Six Aggravated Assault by Vehicle' While DUI -> 12-24 months consecutive to Counts One, Three, Four and Five; g. Count Seven Accidents Involving Death/Injury While not Properly Licensed -» 16-32 months consecutive to Counts One, Three, Four, Five and Six; h. Count Eight Accidents Involving Death/Injury While not Properly Licensed -» 12 months probation Consecutive to Counts One, Three, Four, Five, Six and Seven; i. Count Nine Accidents Involving Death/Injury While not Properly Licensed -» 12 months probation Consecutive to Counts One, Three, Four, Five, Six, Seven and Eight; j. Count Ten Accidents Involving Death/Injury While not Properly Licensed -> 12 months probation Consecutive to Counts One, Three, Four, Five, Six, Seven, Eight and Nine; k. Count Eleven Accidents Involving Death/Injury While not Properly Licensed -» 12 months probation Consecutive to Co”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Commonwealth v. Borrin

2. “This Court's case law has addressed the situations where...the terms of a defendant's sentence as stated at the sentencing hearing conflict (or are deemed incompatible) with the terms of the defendant's sentence as stated in the sentencing order. In these circumstances, for a trial court to exercise its inherent authority and enter an order correcting a defendant's written sentence to conform with the terms of the sentencing hearing, the trial court's intention to impose a certain sentence must be obvious on the face of the sentencing transcript. ... Stated differently, only when a trial court's intentions are clearly and unambiguously declared during the sentencing hearing can there be a "clear clerical error" on the face of the record, and the [signed] sentencing order subject to later correction. If, on the other hand, a trial court's stated intentions during the sentencing hearing are ambiguous, then the terms of the sentence in the [signed] sentencing order control, and the trial court cannot correct its perceived mistake. See Commonwealth v. Isabell , 503 Pa. 2 , [12,] 467 A.2d 1287 , 129[2] (1983) ( [stating:] "Generally, the signed sentencing order, if legal, controls over oral statements of the sentencing judge not incorporated into the signed judgment of sentence"); .... This is because the alleged error in the sentencing transcript is not a "clear clerical error," but rather, is an ambiguity that must be resolved by reference to the written sentencing order.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Commonwealth v. Kremer

3. “THE COURT: ... Count 1 with the mergers, 36 to 72 months. [Count 3] Aggravated assault, the one with Mrs. Linda Delaney, 16 to 32 months consecutive. The one aggravated assault, Count 4, with Paul Huber, 12 to 24 months consecutive. Count 5, involving Mark Hozlock, 12 to 24 months consecutive. Count 6, involving Michael Jacobs, aggravated assault, 12 to 24 months consecutive. [Count 7] Accidents involving death or severe injury involving William Delaney, 16 to 32 months consecutive. [Counts] Eight, nine, ten and 11, they will all be probation, consecutive to each other, one year on each. That’s eight, nine, ten and 11. [Count 12] Endangering the welfare of a child, your own son, sir, three to six months consecutive. [2] Counts 15 and 16, six months consecutive. Count 16, six months probation consecutive. There are summaries [Counts 17, 18, 19, 20] involving fines. We’ll impose the standard range on the fines, plus one [Count 18] carries a mandatory 60 days. That will be consecutive. [[Image here]] THE COURT: [Appellee] gets [258 days] credit for time served.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Commonwealth v. Borrin