Commonwealth v. Jones’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

34 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 34 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “1. Whether the sentencing court failed to follow the directive of the Superior Court to reconsider the sentence and give adequate consideration to appellant's background, his crime-free adult record, the relatively short time span during which the crimes occurred, his undisputed mental illness, his expression of remorse, and the prospects of treatment of appellant's illness. 2. Whether the sentencing court failed to give proper reasons for its sentence and for ignoring the direction of the superior court to impose a lesser sentence. 3. Whether the sentencing court in its re-sentencing again totally ignored evidence which suggests that appellant, in a reasonable period of time and under proper treatment, may return to society as a contributing member. 4. Whether the sentencing court failed to give proper weight to appellant's mental illness and the rehabilitative needs of the appellant and to the testimony at the re-sentencing hearing that treatment for appellant's mental illness was not available in the state system until he was within one or two years of completing his minimum term. 5. Whether the sentence is manifestly excessive and comprises cruel and unusual punishment in that it comprises essentially a life sentence for the appellant.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 418 Pa. Super. 93 - Commonwealth v. Jones

2. “[Appellant] respectfully contends that a substantial question exists that the sentence imposed is not appropriate ... in that: 1. The sentencing Court purported to sentence within the Sentencing Guidelines with respect to Attempted Aggravated Assault but applied the Guidelines erroneously in imposing a sentence of 5 to 10 years when the Jury’s Verdict was mute as to the Subsection for which [Appellant] was convicted; 2. The Sentencing Court sentenced outside the Sentencing Guidelines with respect to Aggravated Assault and Attempted Aggravated Assault and the sentence is unreasonable in that no aggravating circumstances existed such as to warrant sentencing outside of the Sentencing Guidelines. 3. Appellant contends that the Sentence of the Sentencing Court with respect to Aggravated Assault is illegal in that the Appellant’s Motion for Arrest of Judgment with respect to the charge of Aggravated Assault concerning Officer Gerald Williams should have been granted. (Appellant’s Brief at p. 20-21).”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 405 Pa. Super. 110 - Commonwealth v. Kopp

3. “It is to be noted that the concern expressed by the Superior Court in this matter was that the trial court may have focused "nearly exclusively" upon the need to punish for the harm caused to the victims, and that in doing so proper consideration was not given to the mental illness under which petitioner labored at the time of these incidents and the prospects of treatment which petitioner was receiving for the malady. Nothing in the order of the Superior Court would preclude the trial court from reinstituting the same sentence if indeed that court did weigh those factors in arriving at the sentence imposed. The order of the Superior Court should not be viewed as usurping the trial court's exercise of discretion, but rather as attempting to assure that the trial judge properly weighed all of the relevant facts upon which the decision should have been made.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 418 Pa. Super. 93 - Commonwealth v. Jones