green
Positive treatment
8.0 score
Treatment trajectory · 1987 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1987
2006
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 18 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited "see"
Com. v. McCoy, B.
See Commonwealth v. Goldhammer, 512 Pa. 587 , 517 A.2d 1280 , (1986), cert. denied, 480 U.S. 950 , 107 S.Ct. 1613 , 94 L.Ed.2d 798 (1987) (explaining remand for resentencing is proper if appellate court alters overall sentencing scheme).
discussed
Cited "see"
Com. v. Mitchell, J.
See Commonwealth v. Goldhammer, 512 Pa. 587 , 517 A.2d 1280 (1986), cert. denied, 480 U.S. 950 , 107 S.Ct. 1613 , 94 L.Ed.2d 798 (1987)) (stating if appellate court alters overall sentencing scheme, then remand for re-sentencing is proper). - 19 - J-S28022-15 Given the foregoing, we affirm Appellant’s convictions at both dockets, and affirm Appellant’s judgment of sentence at Docket No. 1395-2012.
discussed
Cited "see"
Com. v. Smith, C.
See Commonwealth v. Goldhammer, 512 Pa. 587 , 517 A.2d 1280 , (1986), cert. denied, 480 U.S. 950 , 107 S.Ct. 1613 , 94 L.Ed.2d 798 (1987) (stating if appellate court alters overall sentencing scheme, then remand for resentencing is proper).
cited
Cited "see"
Commonwealth v. Smith
See generally, Commonwealth v. Goldhammer, 512 Pa. 587 , 517 A.2d 1280 (1986), cert. den., 480 U.S. 950 , 107 S.Ct. 1613 , 94 L.Ed.2d 798 .
discussed
Cited "see"
Commonwealth v. Walker
(2×)
See Commonwealth v. Goldhammer, 512 Pa. 587 , 517 A.2d 1280 (1986), cert. denied, 480 U.S. 950 , 107 S.Ct. 1613 , 94 L.Ed.2d 798 (1987) (remanding for resentencing in accordance with original sentencing scheme after sentences on several counts invalidated).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Com. v. Fuentes, J.
See also Commonwealth v. Goldhammer, 512 Pa. 587 , 517 A.2d 1280 (1986), cert. denied, 480 U.S. 950 , 107 S.Ct. 1613 , 94 L.Ed.2d 798 (1987) (stating generally if appellate court alters overall sentencing scheme, then remand for resentencing is proper).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Com. v. Delvalle, J.
See also Commonwealth v. Goldhammer, 512 Pa. 587, 593 , 517 A.2d 1280, 1283 (1986), cert. denied, 480 U.S. 950 , 107 S.Ct. 1613 , 94 L.Ed.2d 798 (1987) (stating generally if appellate court alters overall sentencing scheme, then remand for re-sentencing is proper).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Commonwealth v. Greenlee
See also Commonwealth v. Goldhammer , 512 Pa. 587 , 593, 517 A.2d 1280 , 1283 (1986), cert. denied , 480 U.S. 950 , 107 S.Ct. 1613 , 94 L.Ed.2d 798 (1987) ) (stating generally if appellate court alters overall sentencing scheme, then remand for re-sentencing is proper).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Com. v. Morrison, D.
See also Commonwealth v. Goldhammer, 512 Pa. 587, 593 , 517 A.2d 1280, 1283 (1986), cert. denied, 480 U.S. 950 , 107 S.Ct. 1613 , 94 L.Ed.2d 798 (1987)) (stating generally if appellate court alters overall sentencing scheme, then remand for re-sentencing is proper).2 With respect to Appellant’s second issue, The standard we apply in reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence is whether viewing all the evidence admitted at trial in the light most favorable to the verdict winner, there is sufficient evidence to enable the fact-finder to find every element of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Com. v. Spady, N.
See also Commonwealth v. Goldhammer, 512 Pa. 587, 593 , 517 A.2d 1280, 1283 (1986), cert. denied, 480 U.S. 950 , 107 S.Ct. 1613 , 94 L.Ed.2d 798 (1987)) (stating generally if appellate court alters overall sentencing scheme, then remand for re-sentencing is proper).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Com. v. Sawyer, W.
See also Commonwealth v. Goldhammer, 512 Pa. 587, 593 , 517 A.2d 1280 , 1283 - 13 - J-A10014-15 (1986), certiorari denied, 480 U.S. 950 , 107 S.Ct. 1613 , 94 L.Ed.2d 798 (1987)) (stating, “When a defendant challenges one of several interdependent sentences, he, in effect, challenges the entire sentencing” scheme; if appellate court alters overall sentencing scheme, then remand for resentencing is proper).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Com. v. Williams, M.
See also Commonwealth v. Goldhammer, 512 Pa. 587, 593 , 517 A.2d 1280, 1283 (1986), cert. denied, 480 U.S. 950 , 107 S.Ct. 1613 , 94 L.Ed.2d 798 (1987)) (stating if appellate court alters overall sentencing scheme, then remand for - 15 - J-S34039-14 re-sentencing is proper).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Com. v. Baker, T.
See also Commonwealth v. Goldhammer, 512 Pa. 587 , 517 A.2d 1280 (1986), certiorari denied, 480 U.S. 950 , 107 S.Ct. 1613 , 94 L.Ed.2d 798 (1987)) (stating if appellate court alters overall sentencing scheme, then remand for re-sentencing is proper).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Commonwealth v. Muhammed
See also Commonwealth v. Goldhammer, 512 Pa. 587 , 517 A.2d 1280 (1986), cert. denied, 480 U.S. 950 , 107 S.Ct. 1613 , 94 L.Ed.2d 798 (1987)) (stating if appellate court alters overall sentencing scheme, then remand for re-sentencing is proper). ¶ 12 Judgment of sentence vacated; case remanded for re-sentencing.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Commonwealth v. Williams
See also Commonwealth v. Goldhammer, 512 Pa. 587 , 517 A.2d 1280 (1986), certiorari denied, 480 U.S. 950 , 107 S.Ct. 1613 , 94 L.Ed.2d 798 (1987)) (stating, “When a de *267 fendant challenges one of several interdependent sentences, he, in effect, challenges the entire sentencing plan”; if appellate court alters overall sentencing scheme, then remand for re-sentencing is proper). ¶22 Based on the foregoing, we hold Appellant was in actual physical control of his vehicle such that the evidence was sufficient under the circumstances of this case to support his DUI convictions.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Commonwealth v. Fisher
Commonwealth v. Rodriguez, 416 Pa.Super. 456 , 611 A.2d 305 (1992); see also Commonwealth v. Goldhammer, 512 Pa. 587 , 517 A.2d 1280 (1986), cert. denied, 480 U.S. 950 , 107 S.Ct. 1613 , 94 L.Ed.2d 798 (1987).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Johnson
See, e.g., United States v. Forester, 836 F.2d at 858-59 ; United States v. Horton, 705 F.2d 1414, 1416 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 464 U.S. 997 , 104 S.Ct. 496 , 78 L.Ed.2d 689 (1983); see also United States v. Clark, 807 F.2d 412 , 413 n. 2 (5th Cir.1986), cert. denied, 480 U.S. 950 , 107 S.Ct. 1613 , 94 L.Ed.2d 798 (1987) (assuming without deciding that the motion was taken under advisement). 6 .
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Commonwealth v. Anderson
(2×)
See also Commonwealth v. Goldhammer, 512 Pa. 587 , 517 A.2d 1280 (1986), cert. denied, 480 U.S. 950 , 107 S.Ct. 1613 , 94 L.Ed.2d 798 (1987) (quoting 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 706 (appellate court may affirm, modify, vacate, set aside or reverse any order . . . and may remand the matter and direct the entry of such an appropriate order or require . . . further proceedings . . .)); Commonwealth v. Bigelow, 416 Pa.Super. 449 , 611 A.2d 301 (1992) (appellate court may vacate judgment of sentence and remand to the trial court when disposition of case on appeal may alter sentencing scheme).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Goldhammer
v.
Pennsylvania
v.
Pennsylvania
No. 86-6386.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Mar 30, 1987.
Cited by 2 opinions | Published
Sup. Ct. Pa. Certiorari denied.