Commonwealth v. Kulp’s Empirical Analysis
1978
Citation profile
84 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 86 later decisions — most recently July 2004 · most notably 454 Pa. Super. 428 - Commonwealth v. Yager (1996), Commonwealth v. Morin (1978)
84 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 Boykin v. Alabama · Mapp v. Ohio · Carnley v. Cochran · Commonwealth v. Ingram · Commonwealth Ex Rel. West v. Rundle
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 86 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“... the decision to plead guilty to a charge could not be accepted as being knowingly and intelligently entered without an assurance that the accused fully comprehended the maximum punishment that might be imposed for his conduct. This information is obviously an integral part of the knowledge that should be possessed by one who is called upon to make the difficult decision whether to surrender his right to trial and to place himself at the mercy of the sentencing court. No civilized society could tolerate the waiver of such basic rights from one who was unaware of or misinformed as to such a critical fact.”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage““In asserting its contention that remand is the appropriate remedy, the Commonwealth ignores that [Commonwealth v. Ingram, 455 Pa. 198 , 316 A.2d 77 (1974)] was decided after Williams . While Ingram has been held not to have changed the requirement as to the content of the colloquy, Commonwealth v. Schork, 467 Pa. 248 , 356 A.2d 355 (1976); Commonwealth v. Minor, 467 Pa. 230 , 356 A.2d 346 (1976), it unquestionably stressed the mandate of the rule that there be an on-the-record colloquy: ‘We reiterate here what was said in Ingram, supra, at 204-205 , 316 A.2d at 81 : “Adherence to [the guidelines set out in the Comments to Rule 319(a)] will serve to protect the rights of defendants while simultaneously facilitating appellate review.” Failure to satisfy these minimal requirements will result in reversal.’ Commonwealth v. Dilbeck, 466 Pa. 543 , 353 A.2d 824, 827 (1976). (citations omitted). “For pleas entered after our decision in Ingram , there can be no excuse for a hearing court to have failed to recognize the need of an adequate on-the-record colloquy reflecting a knowledgeable and intelligent waiver.” (Emphasis in original.)”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“conduct an on the record examination of the defendant which should include, inter alia, an attempt to satisfy itself that the defendant understands the nature of the charges, his right to a jury trial, the acts sufficient to constitute the offenses for which he is charged and the permissible range of sentences.”
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.