403 Pa. Super. 467 - Commonwealth v. McClendon’s Empirical Analysis
1991
Citation profile
36 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 38 later decisions — most recently February 2018 · most notably 2014 Pa. Super. 10 - Commonwealth v. Antidormi (2014), 436 Pa. Super. 391 - Commonwealth v. Dalberto (1994)
36 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 · Commonwealth v. Riggins · Cogdell v. United States · Commonwealth v. Devers · Commonwealth v. Forbes
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 38 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““In order to permit the withdrawal of a guilty plea after sentence has been entered, there must be a showing of prejudice that results in a manifest injustice to the defendant.” Commonwealth v. Vance, 376 Pa.Super. 493, 499 , 546 A.2d 632, 635 (1988). See also: Commonwealth v. Schultz, 505 Pa. 188, 191 , 477 A.2d 1328, 1329-1330 (1984); Commonwealth v. Muller, 334 Pa.Super. 228, 233-234 , 482 A.2d 1307, 1310 (1984). “To prove manifest injustice, a criminal defendant must show that his plea was involuntary or was entered without knowledge of the charge.” Commonwealth v. Fenton, 388 Pa.Super. 538, 542 , 566 A.2d 260, 262 (1989). See also: Commonwealth v. Jones, 389 Pa.Super. 159, 162 , 566 A.2d 893, 895 (1989); Commonwealth v. Campbell, 309 Pa.Super. 214, 219 , 455 A.2d 126, 128 (1983). However, “[o]nce a defendant has entered a plea of guilty, it is presumed that he was aware of what he was doing, and the burden of proving involuntariness is upon him.” Commonwealth v. West, 336 Pa.Super. 180, 186 , 485 A.2d 490, 493 (1984). See also: Commonwealth v. Phillips, 374 Pa.Super. 219, 222 , 542 A.2d 575, 576 (1988); Commonwealth v. Brown, 242 Pa.Super. 240, 244 , 363 A.2d 1249, 1251 (1976). “Post-sentencing attempts to withdraw a guilty plea must sustain this more substantial burden [of demonstrating manifest injustice] because of the recognition that a plea withdrawal can be used as a sentence-testing device.” Commonwealth v. Shaffer, 498 Pa. 342, 346 , 446 A.2d 591, 593 (1982). See”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage“In an open plea agreement, there is an agreement as to the charges to be brought, but no agreement at all to restrict the prosecution's right to seek the maximum sentences applicable to those charges. At the other end of the negotiated plea agreement continuum, a plea agreement may specify not only the charges to be brought, but also the specific penalties to be imposed. In between these extremes there are various options, including an agreement to make no recommendation or ... an agreement to make a favorable but non-binding recommendation. ...”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage““Sentencing is a matter vested in the sound discretion of the sentencing judge, and a sentence will not be disturbed on appeal absent a manifest abuse of that discretion.” Commonwealth v. Anderson, 381 Pa.Super. 1, 16 , 552 A.2d 1064, 1072 (1988). See also: Commonwealth v. Hunter, 381 Pa.Super. 606, 618-619 , 554 A.2d 550, 556 (1989); Commonwealth v. Fries, 362 Pa.Super. 163, 167 , 523 A.2d 1134, 1135 (1987). However, the sentencing court must state its reasons for the sentence on the record, which in turn aids in determining “whether the sentence imposed was based upon accurate, sufficient and proper information,” Commonwealth v. Riggins, 474 Pa. 115, 131 , 377 A.2d 140, 148 (1977). See also: Commonwealth v. Thomas, 370 Pa.Super. 544, 551-553 , 537 A.2d 9, 12-13 (1988); Commonwealth v. White, 341 Pa.Super. 261, 270 , 491 A.2d 252, 257 (1985). When the sentence imposed is outside the sentencing guidelines, moreover, the court must “provide a contemporaneous written statement of the reason or reasons for the deviation from the guidelines.” 42 Pa.C.S. § 9721(b). See also: Commonwealth v. Sanchez, 372 Pa.Super. 369, 373 , 539 A.2d 840, 842 (1988), affirmed, 522 Pa. 153 , 560 A.2d 148 (1989); Commonwealth v. Vinson, 361 Pa.Super. 526, 534 , 522 A.2d 1155, 1159 (1987). This requirement is satisfied “when the judge states his reasons for the sentence on the record and in the defendant’s presence.” Commonwealth v. Smith, 369 Pa.Super. 1, 6 , 534 A.2d 836, 838 (1987). See also: Commo”
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.