Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 403 Pa. Super. 325 - Commonwealth v. Dotzman

403 Pa. Super. 325 - Commonwealth v. Dotzman’s Empirical Analysis

1991

Citation profile

10
cited by 10 later decisions
1
states following
April 1994
most recently cited

10 state decisions

Relationships

Relies on North Carolina v. Pearce · Benton v. Maryland · Grady v. Corbin · Commonwealth v. Tuladziecki · 341 Pa. Super. 468 - Commonwealth v. Drumgoole

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

  1. “(a) When the court determines that the defendant possessed a deadly weapon, as defined in 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 2301 (relating to definitions), during the commission of the current conviction offense; at least 12 months and up to 24 months confinement shall be added to the guideline sentence range which would otherwise have been applicable (emphasis added).”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “Any firearm, whether loaded or unloaded, or any device designed as a weapon and capable of producing death or serious bodily injury, or any other device or instrumentality which, in the manner in which it is used or intended to be used, is calculated or likely to produce death or serious bodily injury. (Emphasis added).”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  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

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.