green
Positive treatment
Quoted verbatim 3×
23.3 score
G Cite
cited 6× by 6 distinct cases ·
“If our disposition upsets the overall sentencing scheme of the trial court, we must remand so that the court can restructure its sentence plan.”
cited 5× by 5 distinct cases ·
“[I]f our decision does not alter the overall [sentencing] scheme, there is no need for a remand.”
Treatment trajectory · 2008 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2008
2017
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 20 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
Com. v. Cherry, G.
f our decision does not alter the overall scheme, there is no need for a remand.
examined
Cited as authority (quoted)
Com. v. Reid, A.
when a defendant raises a suppression claim to the trial court and supports that claim with a particular argument or arguments, the defendant cannot then raise for the first time on appeal different arguments supporting suppression.
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
Com. v. McCabe, C.
if our disposition upsets the overall sentencing scheme of the trial court, we must remand so that the court can restructure its sentence plan.
discussed
Cited "see"
Com. v. Nelson, R.
See Commonwealth v. Thur, 906 A.2d 552, 569 (Pa.Super. 2006), appeal denied, 596 Pa. 745 , 946 A.2d 687 (2008) (reiterating that there is no need for remand if Superior Court’s decision does not alter overall sentencing scheme). -8-
discussed
Cited "see"
Com. v. Moses, R.
See Commonwealth v. Thur, 906 A.2d 552, 569 (Pa.Super. 2006), appeal denied, 596 Pa. 745 , 946 A.2d 687 (2008) (stating: “If our disposition upsets the overall sentencing scheme of the trial court, we must remand so that the court can restructure its sentence plan”). 2 Accordingly, we vacate and remand for resentencing.
discussed
Cited "see"
Com. v. Wilkerson, Y.
See Commonwealth v. Thur, 906 A.2d 552, 569 (Pa.Super. 2006), appeal denied, 596 Pa. 745 , 946 A.2d 687 (2008) (stating: “If our disposition upsets the overall sentencing scheme of the trial court, we must remand so that the court can restructure its sentence plan”).
discussed
Cited "see"
Com. v. Fortson, T., Jr.
See Commonwealth v. Thur, 906 A.2d 552, 569 (Pa.Super. 2006), appeal denied, 596 Pa. 745 , 946 A.2d 687 (2008) (stating: “[I]f our decision does not alter the overall scheme, there is no need for a remand”) - 14 - J-A19028-22 (citation omitted).
discussed
Cited "see"
Com. v. White, B.
See Commonwealth v. Thur, 906 A.2d 552, 569 (Pa. Super. 2006), appeal denied, 946 A.2d 687 (Pa. 2008) (noting, “if our decision does not alter the overall scheme, there is no need for remand.”).
cited
Cited "see"
Com. v. Kufrovich, J.
See Commonwealth v. Thur, 906 A.2d 552, 569 , appeal denied, 946 A.2d 687 (Pa. 2008).
discussed
Cited "see"
Com. v. Myers, C
See Commonwealth v. Thur, 906 A.2d 552 (Pa.Super. 2006), appeal denied, 596 Pa. 745 , 946 A.2d 687 (2008) (stating: “If our disposition upsets the overall sentencing scheme of the trial court, we must remand so that the court can restructure its sentence plan”).
discussed
Cited "see"
Com. v. Balas, M., II
See Commonwealth v. Thur, 906 A.2d 552, 570 (Pa.Super. 2006), appeal denied, 596 Pa. 745 , 946 A.2d 687 (2008) (stating vacation of concurrent sentence, which does not disturb sentencing scheme or aggregate length of sentence, does not require remand for resentencing). -4- J-S51019-19 Judgment Entered.
discussed
Cited "see"
Com. v. McCoy, S.
See generally Commonwealth v. Thur, 906 A.2d 552 (Pa.Super. 2006), appeal denied, 596 Pa. 745 , 946 A.2d 687 (2008) (explaining remand for resentencing is not required where invalid sentence does not disturb overall sentencing scheme). - 18 -
cited
Cited "see"
Com. v. Sabater, L.
See Commonwealth v. Thur, 906 A.2d 552, 569-570 (Pa. Super. 2006), appeal denied, 946 A.2d 687 (Pa. 2008). - 15 - J-S79012-17 contraband in the vehicle.
discussed
Cited "see"
Com. v. Eden, J.
See Commonwealth v. Thur, 906 A.2d 552, 569-70 (Pa. Super. 2006), appeal denied, 946 A.2d 687 (Pa. 2008) (if decision does not alter overall sentencing scheme there is no need for remand).
discussed
Cited "see"
Com. v. Smalls, S.
See Commonwealth v. Thur, 906 A.2d 552, 569 (Pa.Super. 2006), appeal denied, 596 Pa. 745 , 946 A.2d 687 (2008) (holding that if disposition upsets overall sentencing scheme of trial court, this Court must remand so trial court can restructure sentencing scheme).
cited
Cited "see"
Com. v. Burns, S.
See Commonwealth v. Thur, 906 A.2d 552, 569-70 (Pa. Super. 2006), appeal denied, 946 A.2d 687 (Pa. 2008).
discussed
Cited "see"
Commonwealth v. Lomax
See Commonwealth v. Thur, 906 A.2d 552 , *1269 569 (Pa.Super.2006) (stating that when our disposition does not upset overall sentencing scheme, there is no need for a remand), appeal denied, 596 Pa. 745 , 946 A.2d 687 (2008).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Com. v. Adams, T.
A21042/20 suppression initially was sought; no new theories of relief may be considered on appeal.” Commonwealth v. Little, 903 A.2d 1269, 1272-1273 (Pa.Super. 2006) (citation omitted); see also Commonwealth v. Thur, 906 A.2d 552, 566 (Pa.Super. 2006) (“When a defendant raises a suppression claim to the trial court and supports that claim with a particular argument or arguments, the defendant cannot then raise for the first time on appeal different arguments supporting suppression.” (citation omitted)), appeal denied, 946 A.2d 687 (Pa. 2008).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Com. v. Rojas, M.
A21037/20 in which he was arrested and treated at the police station; a claim the police continued to interrogate him after he invoked his right to counsel; and a claim the police engaged in the “functional equivalent of interrogation” after he requested counsel.6 We have held, “appellate review of [a ruling on] suppression is limited to examination of the precise basis under which suppression initially was sought; no new theories of relief may be considered on appeal.” Commonwealth v. Little, 903 A.2d 1269, 1272-1273 (Pa. Super. 2006); see also Commonwealth v. Thur, 906 A.2d 552, 566 …
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Com. v. Durham, P.
We have held that, “appellate review of [a ruling on] suppression is limited to examination of the precise basis under which suppression initially was sought; no new theories of relief may be considered on appeal.” Commonwealth v. Little, 903 A.2d 1269 , 1272–1273 (Pa. Super. 2006); see also Commonwealth v. Thur, 906 A.2d 552, 566 (Pa. Super. 2006) (“When a defendant raises a suppression claim to the trial court and supports that claim with a particular argument or arguments, the defendant cannot then raise for the first time on appeal different arguments supporting suppression.”), a…
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
COM.
v.
STERN.
v.
STERN.
574 EAL (2007).
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.
Apr 2, 2008.
946 A.2d 687
Published
Citer courts: Superior Court of Pennsylvania (3)
Disposition of petition for allowance of appeal. Denied.