327 Pa. Super. 147 - Commonwealth v. Dickens’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

21 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 22 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “If, at any time before the defendant has completed the maximum period of probation, or before he has begun service of his probation , he should commit offenses of such nature as to demonstrate to the court that he is unworthy of probation and that the granting of the same would not be in subservience to the ends of justice and the best interest of the public, or the defendant, the court could revoke or change the order of probation. .... The commission of a new crime violates an implied condition of the order imposing probation.”

   4 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 239 Md. App. 297 - McKinney v. State · 1999 Pa. Super. 166 - Commonwealth v. Ware

2. “[T]he decision in Wendowski is not contrary to statutory law in Pennsylvania. The provisions ... which authorize a court to “revoke an order of probation upon proof of the violation of specified conditions of the probation,” do not prevent revocation for violation of a condition which occurs prior to the specific probation being revoked. The commission of a new crime violates an implied condition of the order imposing probation. It suggests that probation is not an effective tool by which to deter anti-social conduct and achieve rehabilitation. If the new offense is committed at any time before the maximum period of probation has been completed, probation may be revoked. 475 A.2d at 144 (citations omitted) (emphasis added).”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Matthews v. State