green
Positive treatment
6.5 score
Treatment trajectory · 2005 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2005
2015
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 9 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Commonwealth v. Holiday
“Our inquiry must focus on the reasons for which the appeal is sought, in contrast to the facts underlying the appeal, which are necessary only to decide the appeal on the merits.” Commonwealth v. Gould, 912 A.2d 869, 872 (Pa.Super.2006) (quoting Commonwealth v. Shugars, 895 A.2d 1270, 1274 (Pa.Super.2006) and Commonwealth v. Goggins, 748 A.2d 721, 727 (Pa.Super.2000) (en banc), appeal denied, 568 Pa. 672 , 759 A.2d 920 (2000)). ¶ 10 In Commonwealth v. Kimbrough, 872 A.2d 1244 (Pa.Super.2005), appeal denied, 585 Pa. 687 , 887 A.2d 1240 (2005), this Court sitting en banc, determined that �…
discussed
Cited "see"
Com. v. McLaughlin, M.
See Commonwealth v. Lloyd, 878 A.2d 867, 873 (Pa.Super. 2005), appeal denied, 585 Pa. 687 , 887 A.2d 1240 (2005) (stating: “The imposition of consecutive rather than concurrent sentences lies within the sound discretion of the sentencing court”).
discussed
Cited "see"
Com. v. Welch, C.
See McAfee, infra at 275. -6- J-S87005-16 to the fundamental norms underlying the sentencing scheme.” Commonwealth v. Kimbrough, 872 A.2d 1244, 1263 (Pa. Super. 2005) (en banc), appeal denied, 887 A.2d 1240 (Pa. 2005) (citation omitted).
discussed
Cited "see"
Com. v. Burns, S.
See McAfee, infra at 275. -9- J-S15038-16 to the fundamental norms underlying the sentencing scheme.” Commonwealth v. Kimbrough, 872 A.2d 1244, 1263 (Pa. Super. 2005) (en banc), appeal denied, 887 A.2d 1240 (Pa. 2005) (citation omitted).
discussed
Cited "see"
Com. v. Canoy, K.
See McAfee, infra at 275. -3- J-A31039-15 to the fundamental norms underlying the sentencing scheme.” Commonwealth v. Kimbrough, 872 A.2d 1244, 1263 (Pa. Super. 2005) (en banc), appeal denied, 887 A.2d 1240 (Pa. 2005) (citation omitted).
discussed
Cited "see"
Com. v. Heck, E.
See McAfee, infra at 275. -3- J-A26043-15 Appellate Procedure 2119(f), articulate “a colorable argument that the sentence violates a particular provision of the Sentencing Code or is contrary to the fundamental norms underlying the sentencing scheme.” Commonwealth v. Kimbrough, 872 A.2d 1244, 1263 (Pa. Super. 2005) (en banc), appeal denied, 887 A.2d 1240 (Pa. 2005) (citation omitted).
discussed
Cited "see"
Stamus v. Dutcavich
See Commonwealth v. Haigh, 874 A.2d 1174, 1178 (Pa.Super.2005) (vacating conviction of indirect criminal contempt when defendant’s infraction was de minimis and non-threatening), appeal denied, 585 Pa. 686 , 887 A.2d 1240 (2005).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Com. v. Gronosky, W.
(See Motion to Modify and Reduce Sentence, 12/27/13, at 2-3); see also McAfee, infra at 275. -6- J-S63034-14 Commonwealth v. Kimbrough, 872 A.2d 1244, 1263 (Pa. Super. 2005) (en banc), appeal denied, 887 A.2d 1240 (Pa. 2005) (citation omitted).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Commonwealth v. Antidormi
Compare Commonwealth v. Washington, 63 A.3d 797, 799 (Pa.Super.2013) (referring to a violation of subsection 6105(a)(1) as felon not to possess a firearm) with Commonwealth v. Jones, 2 A.3d 650, 651 (Pa.Super.2010) (quoting Commonwealth v. Jones, 585 Pa. 687 , 887 A.2d 1240 (2005) (table)) (referring to a violation of subsection 6105(a)(1) as persons not to possess firearms).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
COM.
v.
McLEOD
v.
McLEOD
384 EAL (2005).
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.
Oct 6, 2005.
887 A.2d 1240
Cited by 1 opinion | Published
Disposition of petition for allowance of appeals. Denied.