295 Pa. Super. 276 - Commonwealth v. Love’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

16 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 16 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “(1) a sentence lacks “such finality ... as would prevent a legislative body from authorizing its appeal by the prose- ration,” id. at 135 , 101 S.Ct. at 436 , 66 L.Ed.2d at 345 ; (2) it also lacks “the qualities of constitutional finality that attend an acquittal,” id. at 135 , 101 S.Ct. at 436 , 66 L.Ed.2d at 345 ; (3) the “double jeopardy considerations” —unwarranted exposure of the defendant to harassment, “embarrassment, expense, anxiety and insecurity,” of repeated prosecutions and the threat of being “found guilty even though innocent” — “have no significant application to the prosecution’s statutorily granted right to review a sentence,” id. at 136 , 101 S.Ct. at 437 , 66 L.Ed.2d at 346 ; and (4) because the defendant has no “right to know at any specific moment in time what the exact limit of his punishment will be” his “legitimate expectations are not defeated if his sentence is increased on appeal,” id. at 136 , 101 S.Ct. at 437 , 66 L.Ed.2d at 346 . Moreover, the prohibition against multiple punishment, see Ex parte Lange, 85 U.S. (18 Wall.) 163 , 21 L.Ed. 872 (1874), is inapplicable when the sentencing guideline is explicit and any sentence imposed thereunder is specifically subject to prosecutorial appeal. Id. at 138, 101 S.Ct. at 438 , 66 L.Ed.2d at 346 .”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
   e.g. 324 Pa. Super. 1 - Commonwealth v. Bossche

2. “Until sentencing guidelines by the Pennsylvania Commission on Sentencing and relating to the offenses set out in this subsection become effective pursuant to 18 Pa.C.S. § 1385 (relating to publication of guidelines for sentencing), when any person is convicted in any court in this Commonwealth of murder of the third degree, voluntary manslaughter, rape, involuntary deviate sexual intercourse, robbery, aggravated assault as defined in 18 Pa.C.S. § 2701(a)(1) (relating to aggravated assault) involving the use of a firearm, arson or kidnapping, or of attempt to commit any of these crimes, and when that person has been previously convicted in this Commonwealth, or any other state or the District of Columbia, or any Federal court, of any of the offenses set forth in this section or their equivalent, the sentencing court shall consider as a guideline in imposing sentence that such person be sentenced to a minimum of not less than four years imprisonment.” 4 . Because of our determination, infra, that the Commonwealth waived its Act 319 claim, we need not determine the effect, if any, of the fact that the judge’s statement of reasons was neither "contemporaneous”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 311 Pa. Super. 450 - Commonwealth v. Nixon

3. “One is placed in double jeopardy if he has received an acquittal or its equivalent, or a sentence which is no longer subject to attack. Until such legal sentence is imposed, the jeopardy in which he was placed, when first tried, must be deemed to continue until the time of imposition of legal sentence at the subsequent trial. ‘Until a convicted prisoner receives the sentence which can withstand attack, it may be conceived that his original jeopardy continues without interruption and that he is, therefore, not put in jeopardy a second time when he receives his first valid sentence^]’”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
   e.g. 332 Pa. Super. 239 - Commonwealth v. Button