362 Pa. Super. 390 - Commonwealth v. Ragoli’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

36 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 36 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “At this time we would point out that the procedure employed by the court below in imposing sentence prior to the disposition of post-verdict motions is in contravention of settled practice in this area of procedural law. See Comment to Pa.R.Crim.P. 1123, which reads: Post-verdict motions must be decided before sentencing, because the appeal lies from the final order of the trial court, which ordinarily includes sentence. See Judicial Code, 42 Pa.C.S. §§ 102, 722, 742, 5105(a). See also, Commonwealth v. Bolden, 472 Pa. 602 , 373 A.2d 90 (1977). The implementation by the court below of a procedure ostensibly at odds with accepted practice created the anomalous situation in which once the sentence was “imposed” ... the appellant had thirty (30) days therefrom to perfect an appeal. See Pa.R.App.P. 903(a). Yet the court below attempted to avoid this result by “suspending” sentence pending the filing and disposition of post-verdict motions. In the future, to avoid this procedural entanglement which does little to advance the interests of the judiciary and the litigants, the disposition of post-verdict motions must precede the imposition (“suspended” or otherwise) of the judgment of sentence. See Commonwealth v. Pringle, 304 Pa.Super. 67 , 450 A.2d 103 (1982); Commonwealth v. Williams, 290 Pa.Super. 158 , 434 A.2d 179 (1981).”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 404 Pa. Super. 376 - Commonwealth v. Forman

2. “For example, we note the following failings of the trial court in the post-verdict area; to wit: 1) Failure to impose sentence in open court (see 42 Pa.C.S. § 9752 and Pa.R.Crim.P. 1405(a); 2) No record was made, of the proceeding (see 42 Pa. C.S. § 9759); 3) Failure to provide the appellant with his right of allocution ...; 4) Failure to state on the record the reasons for the sentence imposed (see ... 42 Pa. C.S. § 9721(b); Pa. R.Crim.P. 1405(b)); 5) Failure to articulate the amount of the fine, its due date and inquire as to the appellant’s financial ability to pay (see 42 Pa.C.S. § 9758(a), § 9726(d) and Pa. R.Crim.P. 1407); and 6) Failure to advise the appellant of his post-verdict rights (see Pa.R.Crim.P. 1405(c)). Moreover, the type of mail-order-verdict/sentence’ issued by the court below is at odds with those stated principles so cherished in our judicial system, i.e., to have hearings, proceedings, sentencings and trials conducted in an open forum and of record. These precepts are lacking as to the manner and method in which the verdict and sentence were issued.”

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

3. “(a) The defendant shall be present at the arraignment, at every stage of the trial including the impanelling of the jury and the return of the verdict, and at the imposition of sentence, except as otherwise provided by this rule. The defendant’s absence without cause shall not preclude proceeding with the trial including the return of the verdict.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 370 Pa. Super. 139 - Commonwealth v. Craddock