322 Pa. Super. 110 - Commonwealth v. McDonald’s Empirical Analysis
1983
Citation profile
6
cited by 6 later decisions
1
states following
January 1992
most recently cited
6 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on Rideout v. United States · Commonwealth v. Hubbard · Commonwealth v. Riggins · Commonwealth v. Blair · 265 Pa. Super. 305 - Commonwealth v. Wicks
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 6 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The evidence indicative of the character of the accused was referred to by defense counsel when he stated that appellant had no prior record, had been employed, and successfully completed his G.E.D. program. To this remark, the trial court said that he considered appellant’s “past arrest history” and his “good behavior at the Butler County Prison.” Sentencing Transcript at 2-3. These references made by the trial court were not sufficiently detailed. See, Commonwealth v. Taylor, 290 Pa.Super. 362, 363 , 434 A.2d 794, 795 (1981) (“the decisions of our court and the Supreme Court insist that the trial judge explain in detail the reasons for the sentence imposed— ”) (Emphasis added.) Furthermore, arguments of counsel are not a substitute for dispensing with a statement of reasons to be made by the trial court____ In the instant case, the trial court did state that he had “considered [appellant’s] rehabilitative needs ... the need of protection of the public ... the alternatives in sentencing such as probation, total or partial confinement, a fine, or just plain guilt without any further court action.” Sentencing Transcript at 3. However, these boilerplate reasons also are insufficient to rescue this deficient record.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“the boilerplate reasons listed by the trial court ... fall far short of “reasoned basis” discussed by the Riggins court. Although the trial court at sentencing alluded to all the important considerations that are involved in sentencing a defendant, it gave no consideration of how these considerations applied to appellant. In short, this record does not supply this Court with sufficient information for a meaningful review of the sentence imposed.”
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.