366 Pa. Super. 597 - Commonwealth v. Darden’s Empirical Analysis
1987
Citation profile
69 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 71 later decisions — most recently August 2011 · most notably 368 Pa. Super. 372 - Commonwealth v. Petras (1987), 372 Pa. Super. 145 - Commonwealth v. Felix (1988)
69 state decisions
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
Relationships
Relies on Commonwealth v. Tuladziecki · 343 Pa. Super. 596 - Commonwealth v. Hutchinson · 364 Pa. Super. 505 - Commonwealth v. Osborn · 245 Pa. Super. 521 - Commonwealth v. Hayes · Commonwealth v. Riggins
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 71 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“SUBSTANTIAL QUESTION THERE IS A SUBSTANTIAL QUESTION THAT THE SENTENCE IMPOSED ON DECEMBER 4, 1985 IS NOT APPROPRIATE UNDER THE SENTENCING CODE. Defendant was sentenced in accordance with the Sentencing Guidelines, 204 Pa.Code Ch. 303. The sentencing court erroneously applied the sentencing guidelines by applying a prior record score of “4” under the sentencing guidelines. This was based on a two-count conviction (or two convictions) for forgery and attempted forgery on June 19, 1978, for which defendant was sentenced on February 7, 1979. The trial court’s prior score of “4” was based upon two separate forgery convictions, each graded an “F-2,” and hence computed as two points each in the prior record score; however, each conviction involved a commercial instrument. Hence, said convictions should have been graded “F-3” prior convictions, computed as one point each. Furthermore, said convictions were prosecuted concurrently with common and coincident aspects and should have been considered as having arisen out of the same criminal transaction; hence, said convictions should have been scored as a single conviction under Section 303.7(c). The trial court misperceived appellant’s criminal record as including guilty pleas to five offenses; one of these was a Section 17 disposition under the controlled substance Act. Appellant pled guilty to at most four offenses. The trial court relied upon insufficient, improper, and inaccurate information under the Sentencing Code, including eff”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“Allowance of appeal may be granted at the discretion of the appellate court where it appears that there is a substantial question that the sentence imposed is not appropriate under this chapter.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“[W]hile the sentencing court is required to ‘consider’ the applicable guidelines, and while the reasons for any deviation from the applicable standard range of the guidelines must be explained in writing, the determination of whether the sentence is ‘not appropriate,’ ‘clearly unreasonable,’ or ‘unreasonable’ must be made with reference to the Sentencing Code as a whole, not solely with reference to the provisions of the sentencing guidelines.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.