Commonwealth v. Perry’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

19 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 19 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““the guidelines have no binding effect, create no presumption in sentencing, and do not predominate over other sentencing factors — they are advisory guideposts that are valuable, may provide an essential starting point, and that must be respected and considered; they recommend, however, rather than re quire a particular sentence.” Walls 4 592 Pa. at 570, 926 A.2d at 964-65. Additionally, to the extent the Superior Court in Walls suggested that a defendant must be sentenced to the minimum amount of confinement that is consistent with the protection of the public, gravity of the offense, and rehabilitative needs of the defendant, we rejected that position, noting that the phrase “minimum amount of confinement” had been deleted from the Sentencing Code in 1978. Id. at 571, 926 A.2d at 965.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent
   e.g. 2012 Pa. Super. 137 - Commonwealth v. Glass

2. “(c) Determination on appeal. — The appellate court shall vacate the sentence and remand the case to the sentencing court with instructions if it finds: (1) the sentencing court purported to sentence within the sentencing guidelines, but applied the guidelines erroneously; (2) the sentencing court sentenced within the sentencing guidelines but the case involves circumstances where the application of the guidelines would be clearly unreasonable or (3) the sentencing court sentenced outside ■the sentencing guidelines and the sentence is unreasonable. In all other cases the appellate court shall affirm the sentence imposed by the sentencing court.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent
   e.g. Commonwealth v. Shull

3. “(d) Review of record. — In reviewing the record the appellate court shall have regard for: (1) The nature and circumstances of the offense arid the history and characteristics of the defendant. (2) The opportunity of the sentencing court to observe the defendant, including any presentence investigation. (3) The findings upon which the sentence was based. (4) The guidelines promulgated by the commissiori.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent
   e.g. Commonwealth v. Shull