green
Positive treatment
Trending · 120 recent citers
6.9 score
Treatment trajectory · 2005 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2005
2015
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 12 distinct citers.
discussed
Cited "see"
Commonwealth v. Jackson, K., Aplt.
See Pa.R.A.P. 311(d) (providing that, “[i]n a criminal case, under the circumstances provided by law, the Commonwealth may take an appeal as of right from an order that does not end the entire case where the Commonwealth certifies in the notice of appeal that the order will terminate or substantially handicap the prosecution”). 7 The Superior Court also observed that, “[w]hen reviewing an order granting suppression, [its] scope of review only includes ‘the evidence of the defendant’s witnesses and so much of the evidence for the prosecution as read in the context of the record as a w…
discussed
Cited "see"
Com. v. Badell, M.
See Commonwealth v. Griffin, 804 A.2d 1, 7-8 (Pa. Super. ____________________________________________ 5 A substantial question exists when an appellant sets forth “a colorable argument that the sentence imposed is either inconsistent with a specific provision of the Sentencing Code or is contrary to the fundamental norms underlying the sentencing process.” Commonwealth v. Ventura, 975 A.2d 1128, 1133 (Pa. Super. 2009), appeal denied, 987 A.2d 161 (Pa. 2009) (citation omitted). -4- J-S59025-17 2002), appeal denied, 868 A.2d 1198 (Pa. 2005), cert. denied, 545 U.S. 1148 (2005).
discussed
Cited "see"
Com. v. Burns, S.
See Commonwealth v. Griffin, 804 A.2d 1, 8 (Pa. Super. 2002), appeal denied, 868 A.2d 1198 (Pa. 2005), cert. denied, 545 U.S. 1148 (2005) (affirming judgment of sentence where court had reviewed PSI and demonstrated that it considered sentencing guidelines and chose to depart from them even though court did not enunciate specific guideline ranges).
discussed
Cited "see"
Com. v. Paxton, O.
See Commonwealth v. Griffin, 804 A.2d 1, 7 (Pa. Super. 2002), appeal denied, 868 A.2d 1198 (Pa. 2005), cert. denied, 545 U.S. 1148 (2005) (“A claim that the sentencing court imposed an unreasonable sentence by sentencing outside the guideline ranges presents a ‘substantial question’ for our review.”).
discussed
Cited "see"
Commonwealth v. Shugars
See Commonwealth v. Griffin, 804 A.2d 1, 8 (Pa.Super.2002) ("When the record demonstrates that the sentencing court was aware of the guideline ranges and contains no indication that incorrect guideline ranges were applied or that the court misapplied the applicable ranges, we will not reverse simply because the specific ranges were not recited at the sentencing hearing.”), appeal denied, 582 Pa. 671 , 868 A.2d 1198 (2005), cert. denied, - U.S. -, 125 S.Ct. 2984 , 162 L.Ed.2d 902 (2005).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Com. v. Reddy, M.
See, e.g., Commonwealth v. Griffin, 804 A.2d 1, 8 (Pa.Super. 2002), appeal denied, 868 A.2d 1198 (Pa. 2005), cert. denied, 545 U.S. 1148 (2005), citing Commonwealth v. Eby, 784 A.2d 204 (Pa.Super. 2001) (reiterating that “the sentencing judge must state of record the factual basis and specific reasons which compelled him or her to deviate from the guideline ranges.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Commonwealth v. Fortson
In exercising its discretion, “[t]he sentencing court must impose a sentence that is appropriate in light of the individualized facts of the underlying incident.” Commonwealth v. Johnson, 873 A.2d 704, 709 (Pa. Super. 2005); see also Commonwealth v. Griffin, 804 A.2d 1, 10 (Pa. Super. 2002), appeal denied, 582 Pa. 671 , 868 A.2d 1198 (2005), cert. denied, 545 U.S. 1148 , 125 S.Ct. 2984 , 162 L.Ed.2d 902 (2005).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Com. v. Snowden, W.
See, e.g., Commonwealth v. Griffin, 804 A.2d 1, 8 (Pa.Super. 2002), appeal denied, 868 A.2d 1198 (Pa. 2005), cert. denied, 545 U.S. 1148 (2005), citing Commonwealth v. Eby, 784 A.2d 204, 206 (Pa.Super. 2001) (“[T]he sentencing judge must state of record the factual basis and specific reasons which compelled him or her to deviate from the guideline ranges.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Com. v. Cummings, E.
See also Commonwealth v. Griffin, 804 A.2d 1, 9 (Pa.Super. 2002), appeal denied, 868 A.2d 1198 (Pa. 2005), cert. denied, 545 U.S. 1148 (2005), citing Commonwealth v. Williams, 562 A.2d 1385, 1388 (Pa.Super. 1989) (en banc) (an allegation that the sentencing court did not adequately 8 We observe the trial court was well aware of appellant’s medical conditions and, in fact, sought help for him. - 13 - J.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Com. v. Poston, J.
See, e.g., Commonwealth v. Griffin, 804 A.2d 1, 8 (Pa.Super. 2002), appeal denied, 868 A.2d 1198 (Pa. 2005), cert. denied, 545 U.S. 1148 (2005), citing Commonwealth v. Eby, 784 A.2d 204 (Pa.Super. 2001) (“[T]he sentencing judge must state of record the factual basis and specific reasons which compelled him or her to deviate from the guideline ranges.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Com. v. Holmes, E.
See also Commonwealth v. Griffin, 804 A.2d 1, 9 (Pa.Super. 2002), appeal denied, 868 A.2d 1198 (Pa. 2005), cert. denied, 545 U.S. 1148 (2005), citing Williams, supra (an allegation that the sentencing court did not adequately consider various factors is, in effect, a request that this court substitute its judgment for that of the lower court in fashioning a defendant’s sentence).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Commonwealth v. Moury
Compare Commonwealth v. Felmlee, 828 A.2d 1105, 1107 (Pa.Super.2003) (en banc) (stating substantial question is raised, however, where appellant alleges sentencing court imposed sentence in aggravated range without adequately considering mitigating circumstances). ¶ 16 “When imposing a sentence, a court is required to consider the particular circumstances of the offense and the character of the defendant.” Commonwealth v. Griffin, 804 A.2d 1, 10 (Pa.Super.2002), appeal denied, 582 Pa. 671 , 868 A.2d 1198 (2005), cert. denied, 545 U.S. 1148 , 125 S.Ct. 2984 , 162 L.Ed.2d 902 (2005).
COM.
v.
GRIFFIN[4]
v.
GRIFFIN[4]
351 EAL (2002).
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.
Feb 24, 2005.
868 A.2d 1198
Cited by 1 opinion | Published
Disposition of petition for allowance of appeal denied.
4 Justice EAKIN did not participate in the consideration or decision of this matter.