402 Pa. Super. 369 - Commonwealth v. Brown’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

25 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 25 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “While we may affirm a sentence that is outside the guidelines provided it is reasonable, 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9781(c)(3), it is imperative that the sentencing court determine the correct starting point in the guidelines before sentencing outside them____ Instantly, we find that the lower court did not first correctly determine the appropriate sentence under the guidelines____ If, upon remand, the court finds it appropriate to deviate from the proper sentencing range, it may do so by placing sufficient reasons on the record, subject to later review by this court____ Presently, it is clear that [defendant’s] conviction for aggravated assault (causes serious bodily injury), 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 2702(a)(1), carries a gravity offense score of “9,” not “8.” Thus, it is readily apparent that the trial court did not correctly determine the appropriate sentencing range for [defendant]____ It is also clear that application of the deadly weapon enhancement to appellant’s aggravated assault conviction does not violate the principles of double jeopardy---- Moreover, it is important to remember that a sentencing court may, at its discretion, impose a sentence below that suggested by enhanced guidelines ranges____”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 415 Pa. Super. 534 - Commonwealth v. Brown

2. “[Defendant’s] sentence of 12 months less one day to 24 months less one day for the aggravated assault is over two years less than even the mitigated range of the guidelines. Even if we consider [defendant’s] aggregate sentence of 18 months less one day to 40 months less one day, it is still almost two years less than the suggested sentence (mitigated range) for the aggravated assault alone. In choosing among the various sentencing alternatives, the lower court appears to have focused solely on the needs of Brown to the exclusion of other sentencing factors, including the gravity of the offense and its impact upon the victim. The sentence appears unreasonably lenient for the brutal stabbing, [citations omitted].”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent
   e.g. 415 Pa. Super. 534 - Commonwealth v. Brown

3. “The constitutional protection against double jeopardy precludes one from being punished twice for the same offense____ [Section] 303.4 ... does not provide for sentencing the defendant twice for the same offense, but rather calls for an increase in the guidelines sentence range where a deadly weapon has been used____ [Section] 303.4 does not conflict with the prohibition against double jeopardy, [footnote omitted]. The double jeopardy clause ... “protects against multiple punishments for the same offense.” [citations omitted]. An increase in the guideline sentencing range does not constitute multiple punishment for the same offense.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 415 Pa. Super. 534 - Commonwealth v. Brown