Commonwealth v. Chiappini’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

46 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 48 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “Like Justice Nigro, I find further support for this conclusion in the Superior Court’s decision in Commonwealth v. Shartle, 438 Pa.Super. 403 , 652 A.2d 874 (1995). There, the Superior Court found that a defendant was not entitled to credit against her sentence for time spent in a home confinement program from the time of her arrest until her preliminary hearing. The court pointed to the non-custodial nature of a sentence served in one’s home and concluded that it is “not the equivalent of time served in an institutional setting.” Id. at 409 , 652 A.2d at 877 . Finding the term “custody” in 42 Pa. C.S. § 9760 to be synonymous with the term “imprisonment” in 75 Pa.C.S. § 3731, the Superior Court applied this Court’s holdings in Commonwealth v. Kriston, 527 Pa. 90 , 588 A.2d 898 (1991) (holding that sentences of imprisonment pursuant to 75 Pa.C.S. § 3731 must be served in institutional settings) and Commonwealth v. Conahan, 527 Pa. 199 , 589 A.2d 1107 (1991) (credit for time served in an inpatient alcohol rehabilitation program is time served in an institutional setting and therefore imprisonment pursuant to 75 Pa.C.S. § 3731). In Conahan , this Court had expressed its concerns with awarding sentencing credit for time spent in a home confinement program: In Kriston , we were concerned with the non-custodial nature of a sentence being served in a personal residence. While it is true that one subject to home monitoring has his liberty re strained and risks being sent to prison if”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Commonwealth v. Vanskiver

2. “The specific program that the Appellant was subject to was run by the Lackawanna County Prison authorities. Generally, the rules and regulations of the program specified that a participant in the program was considered an inmate of the Lackawanna County Prison and that his/her residence would be considered a jail without bars. Participation in the program was monitored by a non-removable ankle or wrist bracelet which the participant was required to wear at all times. A monitoring device was connected to a participant’s telephone and corrections personnel was permitted to enter the participant’s home in order to maintain this equipment. Additionally, the restrictions imposed by the program were monitored by telephone calls and visits by home detention staff members. A participant was required to cooperate with home detention staff and permit them to enter the residence upon request at any time of day or night.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 2004 Pa. Super. 379 - Commonwealth v. Pettus

3. “[i]n determining whether a person has spent time in custody it is necessary to examine the extent of control exercised by those in authority. The type of technology employed in this case has made it possible for prison authorities to restrain and severely limit a person’s freedom by limiting his ability to move about freely to the confines of his home. The restrictions placed upon Appellant here went well beyond the restrictions typically employed by a court in releasing a defendant on his own recognizance or upon a condition that a defendant not leave the jurisdiction of the court.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Commonwealth v. Vanskiver