451 Pa. Super. 192 - Commonwealth v. Smith’s Empirical Analysis
1996
Citation profile
10 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 10 later decisions — most recently June 2010
10 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. Silverman · 433 Pa. Super. 111 - Commonwealth v. Quinlan · Commonwealth v. Rubright · 434 Pa. Super. 309 - Commonwealth v. Anderson · 271 Pa. Super. 581 - Commonwealth v. Coleman
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.
“A determination of guilt without further imposition of penalty constitutes a final, appealable order. Commonwealth v. Rubright, 489 Pa. 356 , 414 A.2d 106 (1980). A trial court may alter or modify a final order within thirty days after its entry, if no appeal is taken. 42 Pa. C.S.A. § 5505; Commonwealth v. Quinlan, [ 433 Pa.Super. 111 , 639 A.2d 1235, 1238 (Pa.Super.1994) ]. Once the thirty-day period for altering or modifying sentence is over, the trial court loses power to alter its orders. Commonwealth v. Dasilva [,] 440 Pa.Super. 291 , 655 A.2d 568 (1995); Commonwealth v. Quinlan, supra. Furthermore, a modification of sentence imposed on a criminal defendant which increases his punishment constitutes double jeopardy. Commonwealth v. Coleman, 271 Pa.Super. 581 , 414 A.2d 635 (1979); Commonwealth v. Silverman, 442 Pa. 211 , 275 A.2d 308 (197[1]). Although the trial court acted within its power when it revoked appellant’s probation and resentenced her for the simple assault conviction, the trial court erred when it resentenced appellant for the PIC conviction. First, the trial court had already issued a final sentence for the PIC conviction in the form of a guilt determination without further penalty. The thirty-day period in which it could have altered the sentence expired, and the appellant did not appeal. Therefore, the trial court did not have the power to alter or modify the no-further-penalty sentence it had initially imposed upon appellant. See Commonwealth v. Dasilva”
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.