259 Pa. Super. 527 - Commonwealth v. Wareham’s Empirical Analysis
1978
Citation profile
65 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 65 later decisions — most recently February 2002 · most notably 329 Pa. Super. 42 - Commonwealth v. Gordon (1984), 285 Pa. Super. 417 - Commonwealth v. Youngkin (1981)
65 state decisions
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
Relationships
Relies on Commonwealth v. Riggins · Commonwealth v. Martin · Commonwealth v. Kostka · 252 Pa. Super. 584 - Commonwealth v. Wertz
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 65 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““[i]t is better practice for the court to include in its statement of reasons for the sentence some reference to the guidelines specified in the Sentencing Code, with some explanation of how consideration of those guidelines affected the determination of sentence.” Commonwealth v. Wareham, 259 Pa.Super. 527, 534 , 393 A.2d 951, 954 (1978).”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage“The court must order, or record the reasons for not ordering, a presentence investigation report pursuant to the terms of Pennsylvania Rule of Criminal Procedure 1403, unless the case is within the narrow exceptions of § A(2) of that Rule. 7 The court must afford counsel for the defendant the right to examine the presentence report before sentencing and, if counsel contests any portion of that report, must afford counsel the right to offer evidence in rebuttal. The court must afford the defendant, counsel for the defendant and counsel for the Commonwealth the opportunity to present information and conduct argument. The court must consider any information in the record, including the presentence report, that bears upon the degree of punishment and must thoroughly examine (1) the facts and circumstances of the crime and (2) the facts and circumstances of the background and character of the defendant and, in doing so, must not overlook pertinent facts or disregard the force of evidence or commit an error of law. The court cannot impose a sentence pursuant to any predetermined policy or impose a sentence that exceeds the maximum prescribed by the statute. The court must provide an indication that it concluded that probation and/or partial confinement were not appropriate. The court can only impose total confinement if it is of the opinion that total confinement is necessary because: (1) there is undue risk that during the period of probation or partial confinement the defendant w”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“In appraising this request, the court was obliged to accord weight to the following factors: (1) The criminal conduct of the defendant neither caused nor threatened serious harm. (2) The defendant did not contemplate that his conduct would cause or threaten serious harm. (3) The defendant acted under a strong provocation. (4) There were substantial grounds tending to excuse or justify the criminal conduct of the defendant, though failing to establish a defense. (5) The victim of the criminal conduct of the defendant induced or facilitated its commission.. (6) The defendant has compensated or will compensate the victim of his criminal conduct for the damage or injury that he sustained. (7) The defendant has no history of prior delinquency or criminal activity or has led a law-abiding life for a substantial period of time before the commission of the present crime. (8) The criminal conduct of the defendant was the result of circumstances unlikely to recur. (9) The character and attitudes of the defendant indicate that he is unlikely to commit another crime. (10) The defendant is particularly likely to respond affirmatively to probationary treatment. (11) The confinement of the defendant would entail excessive hardship to him or his defendants [sic]. (12) Such other grounds as indicate the desirability of probation. Id. § 1322. If after this weighing, the court concluded not to impose a sentence of probation, it was next obliged to consider whether total confinement as opposed t”
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.