297 Pa. Super. 405 - Commonwealth v. Cadogan’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

24 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 24 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““[I]n merger of sentence cases, we focus not only on the similarity of the elements of the crimes but also, and primarily, on the facts proved at trial, for the question is whether those facts show that in practical effect the defendant committed a single criminal act, in which case there will be a merger and only a single sentence may be imposed.”² Commonwealth v. Crocker, 280 Pa. Superior Ct. 470, 475 , 421 A.2d 818, 820 (1980) (burglary and criminal trespass). See Commonwealth v. Walker, 468 Pa. 323 , 362 A.2d 227 (1976) (rape and statutory rape); Commonwealth v. Eberts, 282 Pa. Superior Ct. 354 , 422 A.2d 1154 (1980) (robbery and reckless endangerment); Commonwealth v. Lezinsky, 264 Pa. Superior Ct. 476 , 400 A.2d 184 (arson and criminal mischief). Applying these principles, we hold that the lower court erred in imposing separate sentences for burglary and criminal trespass, for in practical effect, appellant participated in but one unlawful entry. Accordingly, we vacate the judgment of sentence for criminal trespass. Because the sentence for the less serious crime of criminal trespass did not influence the sentences for burglary and conspiracy,³ we need not remand for resentencing. Commonwealth v. Crocker, supra; Commonwealth v. Eberts, supra. (Footnotes omitted).”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 306 Pa. Super. 422 - Commonwealth v. Franklin

2. ““[I]n merger of sentences cases, we focus not only on the similarity of the elements of the crimes but also, and primarily, on the facts proved at trial, for the question is whether those facts show that in practical effect the defendant committed a single criminal act, in which case there will be merger and only a single sentence may be imposed, or more than a single act, in which case there will be no merger and a sentence may be imposed for each act.” (Citations omitted).”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 328 Pa. Super. 86 - Commonwealth v. Vazquez