342 Pa. Super. 58 - Commonwealth v. Cooke’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

55 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 57 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “(a) Mandatory sentence. — Any person who is convicted in any court of this Commonwealth of murder of the third degree, voluntary manslaughter, rape, involuntary deviate sexual intercourse, robbery as defined in 18 Pa.C.S. § 3701(a)(l)(i), (ii), or (iii) (relating to robbery), aggravated assault as defined in 18 Pa.C.S. § 2702(a)(1) (relating to aggravated assault) or kidnapping, or who is convicted of attempt to commit any of these crimes, shall, if the person visibly possessed a firearm during the commission of the offense, be sentenced to a minimum sentence of at least five years of total confinement notwithstanding any other provision of this title or other statute to the contrary. (b) Proof at sentencing. — Provisions of this section shall not be an element of the crime and notice thereof to the defendant shall not be required prior to conviction, but reasonable notice of the Commonwealth’s intention to proceed under this section shall be provided after conviction and before sentencing. The applicability of this section shall be determined at sentencing. The court shall consider any evidence presented at trial and shall afford the Commonwealth and the defendant an opportunity to present any necessary additional evidence and shall determine, by a preponderance of the evidence, if this section is applicable. (c) Authority of court in sentencing. — There shall be no authority in any court to impose on an offender to which this section is applicable any lesser sentence than p”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 349 Pa. Super. 407 - Commonwealth v. Cofoni · 350 Pa. Super. 373 - Commonwealth v. Gonzales

2. “Appellant raises four different, but closely related issues: (1) Whether the Mandatory Sentencing Act is unconstitutional under the Due Process Clause because it requires proof only by a preponderance of the evidence that a defendant visibly possessed a firearm during the commission of a crime? (2) Whether the Mandatory Sentencing Act violates Due Process of Law by expressly providing that notice of the Act’s invocation need not be given until after trial? (3) Whether the Mandatory Sentencing Act is unconstitutional because it gives the prosecutor discretion to decide after a determination of guilt whether or not to invoke the Act? (4) Whether the Mandatory Sentencing Act violates the constitutional separation of powers doctrine by delegating too much power to the Legislature to determine the burden of proof to be employed at the sentencing hearing?”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 345 Pa. Super. 178 - Commonwealth v. Bannister · 347 Pa. Super. 640 - Commonwealth v. Wildermuth

3. “Among the circumstances relevant, but not sufficient by themselves, to prove a corrupt confederacy are (1) association between alleged conspirators, ...; (2) knowledge of the commission of a crime, ...; (3) presence at the scene of the crime, ...; and (4) in some situations, participation in the object of the conspiracy,____”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 355 Pa. Super. 183 - Commonwealth v. Morton