2016 Pa. Super. 287 - Commonwealth v. Blakney’s Empirical Analysis
2016
Citation profile
3 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on Alleyne v. United States · Commonwealth, Aplt. v. Hopkins, K. · 2014 Pa. Super. 178 - Commonwealth v. Newman · Commonwealth, Aplt. v. Wolfe, M. · 2014 Pa. Super. 220 - Commonwealth v. Valentine
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 3 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“In Alleyne , the United States Supreme Court held that any fact that, by law, increases the penalty for a crime must be regarded as an element of the offense, and found beyond a reasonable doubt by the fact-finder. See Alleyne , 133 S.Ct. at 2163 . After Alleyne , various mandatory minimum sentencing statutes have been held by this Court to be unconstitutional because they contain a non-severable, 'proof at sentencing' subsection stating that the "[t]he provisions of [the statute] shall not be an element of the crime[,]" and that "the applicability of [the statute] shall be determined at sentencing ... by a preponderance of the evidence." See, e.g. , [ Commonwealth v. ] Newman , 99 A.3d [86,] 90, 101-102 [ (Pa. Super. 2014) (en banc) ] (holding that the 'proof at sentencing' provision contained in 42 Pa.C.S. § 9712.1 is unconstitutional in light of Alleyne , and is not severable from the remainder of the statute). *** [Additionally, in Commonwealth v. Wolfe , 636 Pa. 37 , 140 A.3d 651 (2016),] the [Pennsylvania Supreme] Court struck down the mandatory minimum sentencing provision set forth in 42 Pa.C.S. § 9718, which also contains the standard 'proof at sentencing' provision. See 42 Pa.C.S. § 9718(c). The Wolfe Court reiterated its holding in [ Commonwealth v. ] Hopkins [, 632 Pa. 36 , 117 A.3d 247 (2015),] that such provisions "plainly and explicitly require judicial fact-finding" and are not severable from the remaining provisions of the sentencing statute. Wolfe , 140 A.3d”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“that [s]ection 9718 is irremediably unconstitutional on its face, non-severable, and void.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“plainly and explicitly require judicial fact-finding”
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.