Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
19 Pennsylvania opinions name it 3 courts 2006–2026 3 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Pennsylvania courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Commonwealth v. Shawgreen2 sentences2026Specifically, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court has explained: “In determining whether a foreign state’s statute is equivalent to a Pennsylvania crime under Section 9714 [of the Judicial Code], . . . the court must consider ‘the elements of the foreign offense in terms of classification of the conduct proscribed, its definition of the offense, and the requirements for culpability.’” Commonwealth v. Northrip, 985 A.2d 734, 740 (Pa. 2009) (quoting Commonwealth v. Shaw, 744 A.2d 739, 743 (Pa. 2000) (citation omitted) (superseded by statute)). 2016Thus, the court must consider “the elements of the foreign offense in terms of classification of the conduct proscribed, its definition of the offense, and the requirements for culpability.” Shaw, 744 A.2d at 743 (citation omitted). | 3 | 3 |
Commonwealth v. Samuelgreen2 sentences2020“This very specific and deliberate method of defining crimes of violence in Section 9714 demonstrates the Legislature’s clear intent that with respect to all crimes except burglary, the focus is on the crime for which the defendant was convicted, not the factual scenario underlying that crime.”9 Id. ____________________________________________ 9 We acknowledge that in Commonwealth v. Samuel, 961 A.2d 57 (Pa. 2008), our Supreme Court construed the pre-2012 version of Section 9714(g), which had defined “crime of violence” as including “burglary of a structure adapted for overnight accommodation 2020“This very specific and deliberate method of defining crimes of violence in Section 9714 demonstrates the Legislature’s clear intent that with respect to all crimes except burglary, the focus is on the crime for which the defendant was convicted, not the factual scenario underlying that crime.”9 Id. ____________________________________________ 9 We acknowledge that in Commonwealth v. Samuel, 961 A.2d 57 (Pa. 2008), our Supreme Court construed the pre-2012 version of Section 9714(g), which had defined “crime of violence” as including “burglary of a structure adapted for overnight accommodation | 2 | 4 |
Com. v. Lites, B.green1 sentence2023See Lites, 234 A.3d at 819 (“The Commonwealth … has urged this Court to recognize, for the first time on appeal, the affidavit of probable cause for [Lites’] 1994 burglary, which states that a person was present.”). | 1 | 1 |
Commonwealth v. Bragggreen1 sentence2020See 133 A.3d 328 (Pa. Super. 2016) (challenge to mandatory minimum sentence for subsequent crimes of violence pursuant to section 9714 has no merit), aff’d per curiam, 169 A.3d 1024 (Pa. 2017). | 1 | 1 |
Commonwealth v. Motleygreen1 sentence2019See Motley, supra at 963 . ____________________________________________ 9 Vacating Battle’s judgment of sentence renders moot his fourth claim regarding the discretionary aspects of his sentence. - 16 - Convictions affirmed. | 1 | 1 |
Commonwealth v. Taylor, T., Aplt.green1 sentence2019See Commonwealth v. Taylor, 104 A.3d 479, 490 (Pa. 2014) (“[T]he concept of ‘legality of sentence’ encompasses more than whether a sentence is illegal because it exceeds the statutory maximum. | 1 | 1 |
Commonwealth v. Fordgreen1 sentence2018Commonwealth v. Ford, 44 A.3d 1190, 1194 (Pa. Super. 2012) (citations omitted). -3- J-S60020-18 In his first issue, Appellant argues that his 2001 conviction for “unarmed robbery” is not an enumerated crime of violence under Section 9714(g), and, therefore, it was improperly counted as a second strike at sentencing. | 1 | 1 |
Commonwealth v. Jonesgreen1 sentence2018See Commonwealth v. Jones, 858 A.2d 1198, 1207-08 (Pa. Super. 2004). 3The SOAB is "composed of psychiatrists, psychologists and criminal justice experts, each of whom is an expert in the field of the behavior and treatment of sexual offenders." 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9799.35(a). 2 The Commonwealth gave notice on April 28, 2017, of its intent to seek a mandatory sentence of not less than 25 years' confinement and/or a sentence of life imprisonment without parole on the charges of rape by forcible compulsion, sexual assault and aggravated assault, asserting that Matthews had three prior crimes of violen | 1 | 1 |
Commonwealth v. Bortzgreen1 sentence2015The trial court did not consider an RRRI sentence for Adewumi, finding that Adewumi is precluded from this type of sentence because of the violent nature of his ____________________________________________ 3 Because we conclude that the trial court imposed an illegal sentence, we will not address the discretionary sentencing issue Adewumi raises regarding the length of his sentence. -7- J-S41028-15 offenses.4 Adewumi contends that stalking is not a “crime of violence,” citing to the list of crimes in 42 Pa. C.S. § 9714(g). 5 However, the stalking statute itself provides that violation of a pro | 1 | 1 |
Nelson v. Stategreen2 sentences2009An "occupied structure" is "[a]ny structure, vehicle or place adapted for overnight accommodation of persons or for carrying on business therein, whether or not a person is actually present." 18 Pa.C.S. § 3301(j). [2] See, e.g., Ga.Code Ann. § 17-10-7(c) (defining a repeat offender to include "any person who, after having been convicted under the laws of [Georgia] for three felonies or having been convicted under the laws of any other state ... of three crimes which if committed within [Georgia] would be felonies, [who then] commits a felony within [Georgia]..."); see also Woodson v. State, 24 2009An "occupied structure" is "[a]ny structure, vehicle or place adapted for overnight accommodation of persons or for carrying on business therein, whether or not a person is actually present." 18 Pa.C.S. § 3301(j). [2] See, e.g., Ga.Code Ann. § 17-10-7(c) (defining a repeat offender to include "any person who, after having been convicted under the laws of [Georgia] for three felonies or having been convicted under the laws of any other state ... of three crimes which if committed within [Georgia] would be felonies, [who then] commits a felony within [Georgia]..."); see also Woodson v. State, 24 | 1 | 1 |
Woodson v. Stategreen2 sentences2009An "occupied structure" is "[a]ny structure, vehicle or place adapted for overnight accommodation of persons or for carrying on business therein, whether or not a person is actually present." 18 Pa.C.S. § 3301(j). [2] See, e.g., Ga.Code Ann. § 17-10-7(c) (defining a repeat offender to include "any person who, after having been convicted under the laws of [Georgia] for three felonies or having been convicted under the laws of any other state ... of three crimes which if committed within [Georgia] would be felonies, [who then] commits a felony within [Georgia]..."); see also Woodson v. State, 24 2009An "occupied structure" is "[a]ny structure, vehicle or place adapted for overnight accommodation of persons or for carrying on business therein, whether or not a person is actually present." 18 Pa.C.S. § 3301(j). [2] See, e.g., Ga.Code Ann. § 17-10-7(c) (defining a repeat offender to include "any person who, after having been convicted under the laws of [Georgia] for three felonies or having been convicted under the laws of any other state ... of three crimes which if committed within [Georgia] would be felonies, [who then] commits a felony within [Georgia]..."); see also Woodson v. State, 24 | 1 | 1 |
Commonwealth v. Dickersongreen2 sentences2006First, in Commonwealth v. Dickerson, 533 Pa. 294 , 621 A.2d 990, 991 (1993), we interpreted the pre-1995 version of the Three Strikes Law, which defined “previous convictions” for “crimes of violence” as any of a list of enumerated offenses if they had “occurred within seven years of the date of the commission of the instant offense.” Dickerson raped two women at 9:45 p.m. and 11:00 p.m., respectively, which resulted in two separate criminal prosecutions. 2006First, in Commonwealth v. Dickerson, 533 Pa. 294 , 621 A.2d 990, 991 (1993), we interpreted the pre-1995 version of the Three Strikes Law, which defined “previous convictions” for “crimes of violence” as any of a list of enumerated offenses if they had “occurred within seven years of the date of the commission of the instant offense.” Dickerson raped two women at 9:45 p.m. and 11:00 p.m., respectively, which resulted in two separate criminal prosecutions. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Commonwealth v. Northripgreen2 sentences2026Specifically, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court has explained: “In determining whether a foreign state’s statute is equivalent to a Pennsylvania crime under Section 9714 [of the Judicial Code], . . . the court must consider ‘the elements of the foreign offense in terms of classification of the conduct proscribed, its definition of the offense, and the requirements for culpability.’” Commonwealth v. Northrip, 985 A.2d 734, 740 (Pa. 2009) (quoting Commonwealth v. Shaw, 744 A.2d 739, 743 (Pa. 2000) (citation omitted) (superseded by statute)). 2020“This very specific and deliberate method of defining crimes of violence in Section 9714 demonstrates the Legislature’s clear intent that with respect to all crimes except burglary, the focus is on the crime for which the defendant was convicted, not the factual scenario underlying that crime.”9 Id. ____________________________________________ 9 We acknowledge that in Commonwealth v. Samuel, 961 A.2d 57 (Pa. 2008), our Supreme Court construed the pre-2012 version of Section 9714(g), which had defined “crime of violence” as including “burglary of a structure adapted for overnight accommodation | 1 | 3 |
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Commonwealth v. Guilford
green
2 sentences2021He argues the language of 18 Pa.C.S. § 3701 was amended prior to 2010, citing Commonwealth v. Guilford, 861 A.2d 365 (Pa. Super. 2004), and Commonwealth v. Shiffler, 879 A.2d 185 (Pa. 2004). 2019Taking these requirements in tandem, a first-degree burglary conviction constitutes a crime of violence under section 9714(g) when the sentencing court determines the defendant entered a building or structure “adapted for overnight accommodation” when an individual was “present at the time of entry.” See Commonwealth v. Guilford, 861 A.2d 365 , 374-75 (Pa. Super. 2004) (defining circumstances where first-degree burglary is crime of violence under section 9714(g); holding guilty plea for second-degree burglary, even under conditions which could have constituted first-degree burglary, insufficie | 2 | 2019–2021 |
Commonwealth v. Shiffler
green
1 sentence2021He argues the language of 18 Pa.C.S. § 3701 was amended prior to 2010, citing Commonwealth v. Guilford, 861 A.2d 365 (Pa. Super. 2004), and Commonwealth v. Shiffler, 879 A.2d 185 (Pa. 2004). | 1 | 2021–2021 |
Commonwealth v. Rose
green
1 sentence2019Commonwealth v. Rose, 172 A.3d 1121 , 1132-33 (Pa. Super. 2017). | 1 | 2019–2019 |
Commonwealth v. Taylor
green
1 sentence2016Taylor, supra, 831 A.2d at 666 . | 1 | 2016–2016 |
Almendarez-Torres v. United States
red
1 sentence2015Because Mucci had been previously convicted of robbery and burglary, defined as crimes of violence under section 9714(c), his instant conviction for aggravated assault constituted a second strike under the statute and he was sentenced accordingly. -9- J-S60019-15 In Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224 (1998), the Supreme Court held that the fact of a prior conviction was not an element of the crime required to be charged in the indictment. | 1 | 2015–2015 |
Commonwealth v. Gonzalez
green
1 sentence2015Gonzalez, 10 A.3d at 1263 . | 1 | 2015–2015 |
Commonwealth v. Belak
green
2 sentences2008Relying on Commonwealth v. Belak, 573 Pa. 414 , 825 A.2d 1252 (2003), wherein we held the appellant could not challenge the sentencing court’s finding that persons were present during the commission of the burglaries at issue because the appellant had stipulated thereto at sentencing, the panel concluded here that the sentencing court may determine whether a defendant’s prior convictions constitute crimes of violence under Section 9714(a)(1). 2008Relying on Commonwealth v. Belak, 573 Pa. 414 , 825 A.2d 1252 (2003), wherein we held the appellant could not challenge the sentencing court’s finding that persons were present during the commission of the burglaries at issue because the appellant had stipulated thereto at sentencing, the panel concluded here that the sentencing court may determine whether a defendant’s prior convictions constitute crimes of violence under Section 9714(a)(1). | 1 | 2008–2008 |
Commonwealth v. Campana
yellow
2 sentences2008It would also render the statute contradictory by redefining the crime of burglary with added elements in contradiction of subsection (d), which provides “[pjrovisions of this section shall not be an element of the crime.” Furthermore, Appellant’s position would require the jury to issue a special verdict with individual interrogatories, placing a burden on the Commonwealth and trial court to anticipate various applications of Section 9714, despite the explicit language in subsection (d) that notice of its application “shall not be required prior to conviction.” In addition, in contrast to civ 2008It would also render the statute contradictory by redefining the crime of burglary with added elements in contradiction of subsection (d), which provides “[pjrovisions of this section shall not be an element of the crime.” Furthermore, Appellant’s position would require the jury to issue a special verdict with individual interrogatories, placing a burden on the Commonwealth and trial court to anticipate various applications of Section 9714, despite the explicit language in subsection (d) that notice of its application “shall not be required prior to conviction.” In addition, in contrast to civ | 1 | 2008–2008 |
Chenoweth v. Warner
green
1 sentence2008It would also render the statute contradictory by redefining the crime of burglary with added elements in contradiction of subsection (d), which provides “[pjrovisions of this section shall not be an element of the crime.” Furthermore, Appellant’s position would require the jury to issue a special verdict with individual interrogatories, placing a burden on the Commonwealth and trial court to anticipate various applications of Section 9714, despite the explicit language in subsection (d) that notice of its application “shall not be required prior to conviction.” In addition, in contrast to civ | 1 | 2008–2008 |
Pennsylvania v. Campana
green
1 sentence2008It would also render the statute contradictory by redefining the crime of burglary with added elements in contradiction of subsection (d), which provides “[pjrovisions of this section shall not be an element of the crime.” Furthermore, Appellant’s position would require the jury to issue a special verdict with individual interrogatories, placing a burden on the Commonwealth and trial court to anticipate various applications of Section 9714, despite the explicit language in subsection (d) that notice of its application “shall not be required prior to conviction.” In addition, in contrast to civ | 1 | 2008–2008 |
Commonwealth v. Wright
green
2 sentences2007The certified record does not contain the motion in question, but this deficiency is immaterial because Appellant has not pursued this argument on appeal. [6] The parties do not dispute that robbery is a crime of violence pursuant to § 9714(g), and Appellant has not renewed his argument before this Court that his conviction for criminal conspiracy concerned the original charge of theft, which the Commonwealth did not pursue at trial. [7] We upheld a predecessor version of § 9712 against constitutional challenge in Commonwealth v. Wright, 508 Pa. 25 , 494 A.2d 354 (1985). [8] Mr. Justice Castil 2007The certified record does not contain the motion in question, but this deficiency is immaterial because Appellant has not pursued this argument on appeal. [6] The parties do not dispute that robbery is a crime of violence pursuant to § 9714(g), and Appellant has not renewed his argument before this Court that his conviction for criminal conspiracy concerned the original charge of theft, which the Commonwealth did not pursue at trial. [7] We upheld a predecessor version of § 9712 against constitutional challenge in Commonwealth v. Wright, 508 Pa. 25 , 494 A.2d 354 (1985). [8] Mr. Justice Castil | 1 | 2007–2007 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.