Commonwealth v. Anders’s Empirical Analysis
1999
Citation profile
72 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 72 later decisions — most recently June 2018 · most notably Commonwealth v. Cupps (1999), Commonwealth v. Johnson (1999)
72 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 Barker v. Wingo · Commonwealth v. Pounds · Commonwealth v. Revtai · Jones v. Commonwealth · 382 Pa. Super. 127 - Commonwealth v. Greer
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 72 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(A) Time for Sentencing. (1) Except as provided by Rule 702(B), sentence in a court case shall ordinarily be imposed within 90 days of conviction or the entry of a plea of guilty or nolo contendere. (2) When the date for sentencing in a court case must be delayed, for good cause shown, beyond the time limits set forth in this rule, the judge shall include in the record the specific time period for the extension.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage“(1) the length of the delay falling outside of Rule 1405(A)'s 60-day-and-good-cause provisions, (2) the reason for the improper delay, (3) the defendant's timely or untimely assertion of his rights, and (4) any resulting prejudice to the interests protected by his speedy trial and due process rights. [Citing [Com. v. ] Glover , supra [, 500 Pa. 524 , 458 A.2d 935 (1983) ] ]. Prejudice should not be presumed by the mere fact of an untimely sentence. "Our approach has always been to determine whether there has in fact been prejudice, rather than to presume that prejudice exists." [Quoting Glass , 526 Pa. at 337, 586 A.2d at 372-73 ]. The court should examine the totality of the circumstances, as no one factor is necessary, dispositive, or of sufficient importance to prove a violation. [Citing Greer , 382 Pa.Super. at 138 n. 4, 554 A.2d at 985 n. 4 ]." 7”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“(1) the length of the delay falling outside of Rule 1405(A)’s 60-day-and-good-cause provisions, (2) the reason for the improper delay, (3) the defendant’s timely or untimely assertion of his rights, and (4) any resulting prejudice to the interests protected by his speedy trial and due process rights. Prejudice should not be presumed by the mere fact of an untimely sentence. Our approach has always been to determine whether there has in fact been prejudice, rather than to presume that prejudice exists. The court should examine the totality of the circumstances, as no one factor is necessary, dispositive, or of sufficient importance to prove a violation.”
2 later decisions 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.