310 Pa. Super. 56 - Commonwealth v. Pinder’s Empirical Analysis
1983
Citation profile
11
cited by 11 later decisions
1
states following
July 1995
most recently cited
11 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on United States v. Benz · Commonwealth v. Clair · Commonwealth v. Blair · Hill v. United States ex rel. Wampler · Commonwealth v. Stoltzfus
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 11 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Generally, the signed sentencing order, if legal, controls over oral statements of the sentencing judge not incorporated into the signed judgment of sentence. E.g. Commonwealth v. Hodge, 246 Pa.Superior Ct. 71, 369 A.2d 815 (1977); Commonwealth v. Foster, 229 Pa.Superior Ct. 269, 324 A.2d 538 (1974). If the signed order is inaccurate, the party aggrieved may timely petition to modify it so that it may be corrected. See Pa.R.Crim.P. 1410; Commonwealth v. Anderson, 304 Pa.Superior Ct. 476, 450 A.2d 1011 (1982); Commonwealth ex rel. Woods v. Howard, 249 Pa.Superior Ct. 428, 378 A.2d 370 (1977), citing Hill v. United States ex rel. Wampler, 298 U.S. 460 , 56 S.Ct. 760 , 80 L.Ed. 1283 (1936) (CARDOZO, J.). The lower court also has limited rights to sua sponte correct formal or substantial errors in the sentencing order. See 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 5505; Pa.R.A.P. 1701; Pa.R. Crim.P. 1410; Commonwealth v. Cole, 437 Pa. 288 , 263 A.2d 339 (1970).”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence“Only when the [prosecutor’s] remarks are such that their “unavoidable effect ... would be to prejudice the jury, forming in their minds fixed bias and hostility that they could not weigh the evidence and render a true verdict is a new trial required”____ In [Pinder ], the remarks of the assistant district attorney did not have such an unavoidably prejudicial effect. Usually, the cited remarks were prefaced with the words “I submit.” This was merely an argument, an invitation to the jury to so find____ Moreover, a prosecutor is free to argue that the facts and reasonable inferences to be drawn therefrom are sufficient evidence to support a guilty verdict. (Citations omitted).”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“Here, the lower court did not choose to change or correct its more lenient signed sentencing order, and the Commonwealth, aggrieved by that order, chose not to petition for its modification. We should not intervene where the lower court acted in a matter within its discretion and the aggrieved party has not complained.”
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.