2017 Pa. Super. 43 - Commonwealth v. Islas’s Empirical Analysis
2017
Citation profile
8
cited by 8 later decisions
1
states following
November 2024
most recently cited
8 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on Commonwealth v. Forbes · Commonwealth, Aplt. v. Carrasquillo, J. · Commonwealth v. Santos · Commonwealth v. Woods · Commonwealth, Aplt. v. Hvizda, J.
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 8 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“1. Did the trial court err and/or otherwise abuse its discretion in denying [Appellant's pre]sentence motion to withdraw his guilty plea? 2. May a [trial] court treat a defendant's exercise of his constitutional right to withdraw his guilty plea pursuant to [Pennsylvania Rule of Criminal Procedure] 591, punitively, as a basis in deciding to run a defendant's sentence consecutively rather than concurrently? 3. Did the trial court err and abuse its discretion ... in sentencing [Appellant] to consecutive sentences that stemmed from vindictiveness, because [Appellant] exercised his constitutional right to withdraw his guilty plea pursuant to [Pennsylvania Rule of Criminal Procedure] 591 ?”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“At the hearing' on his motion to withdraw, Islas testified that: he did not engage in the charged conduct; he had maintained his innocence when interviewed by law enforcement; had the conduct occurred as alleged, it would háve been witnessed by other campers and counselors in the cabin at the time; the victim had a motive to fabricate the charges; the victim had delayed in reporting the first incident; and Islas- was of good character, had no criminal record, and had never received a similar complaint in the many years he had been working in the field.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence“there is no absolute right to withdraw a guilty plea; trial courts have discretion in determining whether a withdrawal request will be granted; such discretion is to be administered liberally in favor of the accused; and any demonstration by a defendant of a fair-and-just reason will suffice to support a grant, unless withdrawal would work substantial prejudice to the Commonwealth.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
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.