333 Pa. Super. 77 - Commonwealth v. Williams’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

16 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 16 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““It is well settled that the terms of a plea bargain which serves as an inducement to a defendant to plead guilty, must be binding on thie prosecution. Santobello v. New York, 404 U.S. 257, 262 , 92 S. Ct. 495, 499, 30 L.Ed.2d 427, 433 (1971), remanded, People v. Santobello, 39. App.Div.2d 654, 331 N.Y.S.2d 776 (1st Dept. 1972); Commonwealth v. Landi, 280 Pa. Super. 134 , 421 A.2d 442 (1980). Therefore, the prosecutor has an affirmative duty on the part of the prosecution to honor any and all such promises. If the commonwealth violated a plea bargain, the defendant is entitled to the benefit of the bargain. Commonwealth v. Landi, supra; Commonwealth v. Zuber, 466 Pa. 453 , 353 A.2d 441 (1976).” Williams at 82 , 481 A.2d at 1233 . (emphasis supplied)”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Commonwealth v. Comp · 365 Pa. Super. 562 - Commonwealth v. Coles

2. ““At this juncture the critical question is the kind of relief which appellant should receive. He has asked us to allow him to withdraw his guilty pleas and proceed to trial. On the other hand, it could be argued that he is entitled to receive no more than the benefit of his bargain and that was to receive a sentence with no recommendation from the-commonwealth. We could do that by remanding for sentencing before a different judge; however, the vagaries of the criminal justice system — where ‘two to ten’ to one judge is fair; to another judge severe; and to another judge nothing more than ‘a slap on the wrist’ convinces us that such a remand would do violence to our sense of justice. The ‘benefit of the bargain’ principle is more easily — and fairly — applied in those situations where the commonwealth promises to ask for a specific sentence and then in violation of that promise asks for a more severe sentence which is in fact given. In those situations, implementation of the ‘benefit of the bargain’ principle can be done with certainty and fairness. Not so here. “In this case, we are inclined to the view ex pressed by Mr. Justice Douglas, in his concurring opinion, in Santobello, supra: “ ‘In choosing a remedy, however, a court ought to accord a defendant’s preference considerable, if not controlling, weight, inasmuch as the fundamental rights flouted by a prosecutor’s breach of a plea bargain are those of the defendant, not of the state.’ Santobello v. New York, 404 U.S. at 2”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Commonwealth v. Comp