328 Pa. Super. 498 - Commonwealth v. Martin’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

50 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 52 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “the particular circumstances of the offense and the character of the defendant.”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 401 Pa. Super. 591 - Commonwealth v. Lee · 446 Pa. Super. 408 - Commonwealth v. Widmer

2. “In conclusion, we specifically reject the suggestion of cases such as Commonwealth v. Kraft, [ 294 Pa.Super. 599 , 440 A.2d 627 ] supra, and Commonwealth v. Smith, [ 301 Pa.Super. 204 , 447 A.2d 314 ] supra, that it is proper to reach a [Commonwealth v.] Riggins [ 474 Pa. 115 , 377 A.2d 140 ] issue when that issue has not been raised specifically both before the trial court and before this Court. If the defendant fails to raise a Riggins issue specifically at both stages, the issue is waived. Furthermore, if, in the context of an excessive sentence claim, we can determine from the entire record before us, that the sentence imposed was not excessive and there was no abuse of discretion, as we have done in the instant case, the inquiry is at an end. We will not assess the adequacy of the reasons offered by the trial court in support of the sentence imposed, nor will we, in that context, remand for further elaboration by the trial court, even though the reasons, by themselves, may not be sufficiently detailed under Riggins and, if properly challenged, would prove insufficient to support the sentence.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
   e.g. Commonwealth v. Harris

3. “[t]he court must consider the character of the defendant and the particular circumstances of the offense in light of the legislative guidelines for sentencing, and must impose a sentence, that is the minimum sentence, consistent with the protection of the public, the gravity of the offense, and the rehabilitative needs of the defendant.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 340 Pa. Super. 528 - Commonwealth v. Parrish