2013 Pa. Super. 273 - Commonwealth v. Munday’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

1 federal appellate · 14 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 15 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “(1) claims that the sentence fell 'outside of the legal parameters prescribed by the applicable statute'; (2) claims involving merger/double jeopardy; and (3) claims implicating the rule in Apprendi v. New Jersey , 530 U.S. 466 , 120 S.Ct. 2348 , 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000).”

   4 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Commonwealth v. Smith · Commonwealth v. Crissman

2. ““A challenge to the legality of the sentence may be raised as a matter of right, is non-waivable, and may be entertained so long as the reviewing court has jurisdiction.” Commonwealth v. Robinson, 931 A.2d 15, 19-20 (Pa.Super.2007) (ien bane). The phrase ‘illegal sentence’ is a term of art in Pennsylvania Courts that is applied to three narrow categories of cases. Id. at 21 . Those categories are: “(1) claims that the sentence fell ‘outside of the legal parameters prescribed by the applicable statute’; (2) claims involving merger/double jeopardy; and (8) claims implicating the rule in Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 , 120 S.Ct. 2348 , 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000).” Id. The instant case falls into the latter category. In Apprendi , the Supreme Court of the United States held that “[o]ther than the fact of a prior conviction, any fact that increases the penalty for a crime beyond the prescribed statutory maximum must be submitted to a jury, and proved beyond a reasonable doubt.” Apprendi, 530 U.S. at 490 , 120 S.Ct. 2348 . Stated another way, it “is unconstitutional for a legislature to remove from the jury the assessment of facts that increase the prescribed range of penalties to which a criminal defendant is exposed. It is equally clear that such facts must be established by proof beyond a reasonable doubt.” Id. (quoting Jones v. United States, 526 U.S. 227, 252-53 , 119 S.Ct. 1215 , 143 L.Ed.2d 311 (1999) (Stevens, J. concurring)). [Subsequently] in Alleyne [v. United States,”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 2014 Pa. Super. 264 - Commonwealth v. Conaway

3. “§ 3502. Burglary (a) Offense defined. — A person commits the offense of burglary if, with the intent to commit a crime therein, the person: (1) enters a building or occupied structure, or separately secured or occupied portion thereof that is adapted for overnight accommodations in which at the time of the offense any person is present; (2) enters a building or occupied structure, or separately secured or occupied portion thereof that is adapted for over night accommodations in which at the time of the offense no person is present; (3) enters a building or occupied structure, or separately secured or occupied portion thereof that is not adapted for overnight accommodations in which at the time of the offense any person is present; or (4) enters a building or occupied structure, or separately secured or occupied portion thereof that is not adapted for overnight accommodations in which at the time of the offense no person is present. * * * (c) Grading.— (1) Except as provided in paragraph (2), burglary is a felony of the first degree. (2) As follows: (i) Except under subparagraph (ii), an offense under subsection (a)(4) is a felony of the second degree. (ii) If the actor’s intent upon entering the building, structure or portion under subparagraph (i) is to commit theft of a controlled substance or designer drug as those terms are defined in section 2 of the act of April 14, 1972 (P.L. 233, No. 64), known as The Controlled Substance, Drug, Device and Cosmetic Act, burglary is a ”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 2014 Pa. Super. 264 - Commonwealth v. Conaway