417 Pa. Super. 233 - Commonwealth v. Spells’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

57 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 59 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “[A] court’s proportionality analysis under the Eighth Amendment should be guided by objective criteria, including (i) the gravity of the offense and the harshness of the penalty; (ii) the sentences imposed on other criminals in the same jurisdiction; and (iii) the sentences imposed for commission of the same crime in other jurisdictions.”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Commonwealth v. Lankford · Commonwealth v. Succi

2. “Interpreting the three objective factors established by Justice Powell in Solem , Justice Kennedy found that Solem did not establish a rigid three-part test. While recognizing Solem’s holding that, in determining unconstitutional dispro-portionality, no one factor will be dispos- itive in a given case, Solem, 463 U.S. at 291, n. 17 , 103 S.Ct. at 3010, n. 17, Justice Kennedy opined that one factor may nevertheless determine the constitutionality of a particular sentence: Solem is best understood as holding that comparative analysis within and between jurisdictions [Solem’s criteria ii and iii] is not always relevant to proportionality review. The Court stated that “it may be helpful to compare sentences imposed on other criminals in the same jurisdiction,” and that “courts find it useful to compare the sentences imposed for commission of the same crime in other jurisdictions.” Id,., at 291-92 [103 S.Ct. at 3010-3011].... It did not mandate such inquiries. A better reading of our cases leads to the conclusion that intra- and inter-jurisdictional analyses are appropriate only in the rare case in which a threshold comparison of the crime committed and the sentence imposed leads to an inference of gross dispro-portionality. ... The proper rule for comparative analysis of sentences, then, is to validate an initial judgment that a sentence is grossly disproportionate to a crime.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 2007 Pa. Super. 363 - Commonwealth v. Zurburg · 2011 Pa. Super. 131 - Commonwealth v. Baker

3. “The seriousness of the crime with which Spells was convicted cannot be questioned. As stated above, a mandatory five year minimum sentence for offenses committed with firearms has repeatedly withstood constitutional challenge. Under the Harmelin standard, a comparative analysis is not needed. Therefore, the fact that the “more serious” crime of attempted murder does not likewise carry a mandatory minimum becomes irrelevant. Accordingly, under the current status of the proportionality principle in regard to the constitutional protection against cruel and unusual punishment— a protection coextensive with protections provided by our state constitution— Spells mandatory sentence of five years does not constitute a cruel and unusual punishment under either constitution.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 2011 Pa. Super. 131 - Commonwealth v. Baker