Commonwealth v. Townsend’s Empirical Analysis
1997
Citation profile
14 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 14 later decisions — most recently June 2022
14 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 Anders v. California · Commonwealth v. McClendon · 436 Pa. Super. 391 - Commonwealth v. Dalberto · 449 Pa. Super. 684 - Commonwealth v. Heron · 440 Pa. Super. 615 - Commonwealth v. Daniels
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 14 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(1) counsel must petition the court for leave to withdraw stating that after making a conscientious examination of the record it has been determined that the appeal would be frivolous; (2) counsel must file a brief referring to anything that might arguably support the appeal, but which does not resemble a “no merit” letter or amicus curiae brief; and (3) counsel must furnish a copy of the brief to defendant and advise him of his right to retain new counsel, proceed pro se or raise any additional points that he deems worthy of the court’s attention.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“In effect, this would deny the Commonwealth the full benefit of the agreement, which it reached with the defendant and the defendant, in turn, would receive a windfall”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“[W]here the parties have reached a specific sentencing agreement ... the court cannot later modify the terms of the agreement without the consent of the Commonwealth”
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.