417 Pa. Super. 340 - Commonwealth v. Bowen’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

20 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 20 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “Unlike a challenge to the legality of a sentence,' there is no absolute right to direct appellate review of a discretionary sentencing claim. Rather, a party who desires to raise such matters must petition this court for permission to appeal and demonstrate that there is a substantial question that the sentence is inappropriate. In fulfilling this requirement, the party seeking to appeal must include in his or her brief a concise statement of the reasons relied upon in support of the petition for allowance of appeal [pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 2119(f). In that statement, the appellant must demonstrate that there exists a substantial question that the sentence is inappropriate under the Sentencing Code.] The determination of whether a substantial question exists must be made on a case-by-case basis. It is only where an aggrieved party can articulate clear rea sons why the sentence issued by the trial court compromises the sentencing scheme as a whole that we will find a substantial question and review the decision of the trial court. This [C]ourt has been inclined to find that a substantial question exists where the appellant advances a colorable argument that the sentencing judge’s actions were either: (1) inconsistent with a specific provision of the Sentencing Code; or (2) contrary to the fundamental norms underlying the sentencing process.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 2015 Pa. Super. 45 - Commonwealth v. Ali

2. “when [the victim] was surrounded by [the defendant] and two accomplices inside the car, two of the accomplices had weapons in their hands. One of the gunmen was in the front seat inches away from [defendant].... Even if we were to assume that [defendant] did not possess a gun at the point [the victim] was cornered, assaulted[,] and robbed inside the car, we would conclude that a gun was within [defendant’s] immediate physical control.... [I]t is hard to imagine weapons more within his immediate physical control than were the weapons of his companions at that moment. [Defendant] had ready access to the physical possession of a gun, under the circumstances described here.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 2000 Pa. Super. 121 - Commonwealth v. Pennington