green
Positive treatment
Hot · 99 in 5y
Issue: multitude factorsPA ↗
Issue: four part analysisPA ↗
Issue: Moury testPA ↗
Issue: equitable estoppel doctrinePA ↗
Quoted verbatim 4×
163.1 score
G Cite
cited 63× by 63 distinct cases, 2016–2026 ·
…the requirement that an appellant separately set forth the reasons relied upon for allowance of appeal furthers the purpose evident in the sentencing code as a whole of limiting any challenges to the trial court's evaluation of the multitude of factors impinging on the sentencin…
at p. 112
⚠ not in text
Topic ↗
cited 41× by 39 distinct cases, 2014–2026 ·
…when the appellant advances a colorable argument that the sentencing judge's actions were either: (1) inconsistent with a specific provision of the sentencing code; or (2) contrary to the fundamental norms which underlie the sentencing process.
at p. 112
⚠ not in text
Topic ↗
cited 29× by 29 distinct cases, 2022–2026 ·
…challenges to the discretionary aspects of sentencing do not entitle an appellant to an appeal as of right.
at p. 112
⚠ not in text
Topic ↗
Treatment trajectory · 2008 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2008
2017
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 50 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
Com. v. Deloatch, N.
a substantial question is raised where an appellant alleges his sentence is excessive due to the sentencing court's error in applying the deadly weapon enhancement.
discussed
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
Com. v. Ayala, J.
a trial court's decision regarding access to judicial ... proceedings is within the sound discretion of the trial court, and we will reverse only if the trial court abuses its discretion.
discussed
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
Com. v. Serrano, M.
if a correction by this court may upset the sentencing scheme envisioned by the trial court, the better practice is to remand.
discussed
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
Com. v. Hankerson, T.
if a correction by this court may upset the sentencing scheme envisioned by the trial court, the better practice is to remand.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Com. v. Carter, K.
“The requirement that an appellant separately set forth the reasons relied upon for allowance of appeal furthers the purpose evident in the Sentencing Code as a whole of limiting any challenges to the trial court’s evaluation of the multitude of factors impinging on the sentencing decision to exceptional cases.” Commonwealth v. Phillips, 946 A.2d 103, 112 (Pa.Super. 2008), cert. denied, 556 U.S. 1264 , 129 S.Ct. 2450 , 174 L.Ed.2d 240 (2009) (quoting Commonwealth v. -4- J-S13041- 26 Williams, 562 A.2d 1385, 1387 (Pa.Super. 1989) (en banc)) (emphasis in original) (internal quotation marks…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Com. v. Santiago, L.
(2×)
“Challenges to the discretionary aspects of sentencing do not entitle an appellant to an appeal as of right.” Commonwealth v. Phillips, 946 A.2d 103, 112 (Pa.Super. 2008), cert. denied, 556 U.S. 1264 , 129 S.Ct. 2450 , 174 L.Ed.2d 240 (2009).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Com. v. Santiago, J.
“Challenges to the discretionary aspects of sentencing do not entitle an appellant to an appeal as of right.” Commonwealth v. Phillips, 946 A.2d 103, 112 (Pa.Super. 2008), cert. denied, 556 U.S. 1264 , 129 S.Ct. 2450 , 174 L.Ed.2d 240 (2009).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Com. v. Bates, R.
We have found that a substantial question exists “when the appellant advances a colorable argument that the sentencing judge’s actions were either: (1) inconsistent with a specific provision of the Sentencing Code; or (2) contrary to the fundamental norms which underlie the sentencing process.” Commonwealth v. Phillips, 946 A.2d 103, 112 (Pa. Super. 2008) (citation omitted). - 18 - J-S03020-26 Here, Bates argues that the trial court should have imposed concurrent, rather than consecutive, sentences for his convictions in this case and his separate case finding him in contempt for violati…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Com. v. Morciglio-Figueroa, M.
“The requirement that an appellant separately set forth the reasons relied upon for allowance of appeal furthers the purpose evident in the Sentencing Code as a whole of limiting any challenges to the trial court’s evaluation of the multitude of factors impinging on the sentencing decision to exceptional cases.” Commonwealth v. Phillips, 946 A.2d 103, 112 (Pa.Super. 2008), cert. denied, 556 U.S. 1264 , 129 S.Ct. 2450 , 174 L.Ed.2d 240 (2009) (quoting Commonwealth v. Williams, 562 A.2d 1385, 1387 (Pa.Super. 1989) (en banc)) (emphasis in original) (internal quotation marks omitted).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Com. v. Higgin, G.
(2×)
“Challenges to the discretionary aspects of sentencing do not entitle an appellant to an appeal as of right.” Commonwealth v. Phillips, 946 A.2d 103, 112 (Pa.Super. 2008), cert. denied, 556 U.S. 1264 , 129 S.Ct. 2450 , 174 L.Ed.2d 240 (2009).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Com. v. Burton, Z.
“The requirement that an appellant separately set forth the reasons relied upon for allowance of appeal furthers the purpose evident in the Sentencing Code as a whole of limiting any challenges to the trial court’s evaluation of the multitude of factors impinging on the sentencing decision to exceptional cases.” Commonwealth v. Phillips, 946 A.2d 103, 112 (Pa.Super. 2008), cert. denied, 556 U.S. 1264 , 129 S.Ct. 2450 , 174 L.Ed.2d 240 (2009) (quoting Commonwealth v. Williams, 562 A.2d 1385, 1387 (Pa.Super. 1989) (en banc)) (emphasis in original) (internal quotation marks omitted).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Com. v. Babish, M.
(2×)
“Challenges to the discretionary aspects of sentencing do not entitle an appellant to an appeal as of right.” Commonwealth v. Phillips, 946 A.2d 103, 112 (Pa.Super. 2008), cert. denied, 556 U.S. 1264 , 129 S. Ct. 2450 , 174 -6- J-S38021- 25 L.Ed.2d 240 (2009).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Com. v. Efthimiou, M.
Commonwealth v. Phillips, 946 A.2d 103, 112 (Pa. Super. 2008).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Com. v. Mir, U.
“Challenges to the discretionary aspects of sentencing do not entitle an appellant to an appeal as of right.” Commonwealth v. Phillips, 946 A.2d 103, 112 (Pa.Super. 2008), appeal denied, 600 Pa. 745 , 964 A.2d 895 (2009), cert. denied, 556 U.S. 1264 , 129 S.Ct. 2450 , 174 L.Ed.2d 240 (2009).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Com. v. Smith, C.
(2×)
“Challenges to the discretionary aspects of sentencing do not entitle an appellant to an appeal as of right.” Commonwealth v. Phillips, 946 A.2d 103, 112 (Pa.Super. 2008), cert. denied, 556 U.S. 1264 , 129 S. Ct. 2450 , 174 L.Ed.2d 240 (2009).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Com. v. Houghtaling, I.
“The requirement that an appellant separately set forth the reasons relied upon for allowance of appeal furthers the purpose evident in the Sentencing Code as a whole of limiting any challenges to the trial court’s evaluation of the multitude of factors impinging -3- J-S21016-25 on the sentencing decision to exceptional cases.” Commonwealth v. Phillips, 946 A.2d 103, 112 (Pa.Super. 2008), cert. denied, 556 U.S. 1264 , 129 S.Ct. 2450 , 174 L.Ed.2d 240 (2009) (quoting Commonwealth v. Williams, 562 A.2d 1385, 1387 (Pa.Super. 1989) (en banc)) (emphasis in original) (internal quotation marks …
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Com. v. Kocher, J.
(2×)
“Challenges to the discretionary aspects of sentencing do not entitle an appellant to an appeal as of right.” Commonwealth v. Phillips, 946 A.2d 103, 112 (Pa.Super. 2008), cert. denied, 556 U.S. 1264 , 129 S.Ct. 2450 , 174 - 10 - J-A11027- 25 L.Ed.2d 240 (2009).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Com. v. Wills, N.
“The requirement that an appellant separately set forth the reasons relied upon for allowance of appeal furthers the purpose evident in the Sentencing Code as a whole of limiting any challenges to the trial court’s evaluation of the multitude of factors impinging on the sentencing decision to exceptional cases.” Commonwealth v. Phillips, 946 A.2d 103, 112 (Pa.Super. 2008), cert. denied, 556 U.S. 1264 , 129 S.Ct. 2450 , 174 L.Ed.2d 240 (2009) (quoting Commonwealth v. Williams, 562 A.2d 1385, 1387 (Pa.Super. 1989) (en banc)) (emphasis in original) (internal quotation marks omitted).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Com. v. Johnson, X.
(2×)
“Challenges to the discretionary aspects of sentencing do not entitle an appellant to an appeal as of right.” Commonwealth v. Phillips, 946 A.2d 103, 112 (Pa.Super. 2008), cert. denied, 556 U.S. 1264 , 129 S.Ct. 2450 , 174 L.Ed.2d 240 (2009).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Com. v. Grissom, D.
(2×)
“Challenges to the discretionary aspects of sentencing do not entitle an appellant to an appeal as of right.” Commonwealth v. Phillips, 946 A.2d 103, 112 (Pa.Super. 2008), cert. denied, 556 U.S. 1264 , 129 S. Ct. 2450 , 174 L.Ed.2d 240 (2009).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Com. v. Wallace, J.
We determine whether the appellant has presented a substantial question “on a case-by-case basis.” Commonwealth v. Phillips, 946 A.2d 103, 112 (Pa.Super. 2008).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Com. v. Fitzpatrick, T.
“In general, the imposition of sentence following the revocation of probation is vested within the sound discretion of the trial court, which, absent an abuse of that discretion, will not be disturbed on appeal.” Commonwealth v. Phillips, 946 A.2d 103, 112 (Pa. Super. 2008) (citation omitted).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Com. v. Miller, S.
“The requirement that an appellant separately set forth the reasons relied upon for allowance of appeal furthers the purpose evident in the Sentencing Code as a whole of limiting any challenges to the trial court’s evaluation of the multitude of factors impinging on the sentencing decision to exceptional cases.” Commonwealth v. Phillips, 946 A.2d 103, 112 (Pa.Super. 2008), cert. denied, 556 U.S. 1264 , 129 S.Ct. 2450 , 174 L.Ed.2d 240 (2009) (quoting Commonwealth v. Williams, 562 A.2d 1385, 1387 (Pa.Super. 1989) (en banc)) (emphasis in original) (internal quotation marks omitted).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Com. v. Dick, R.
(2×)
“Challenges to the discretionary aspects of sentencing do not entitle an appellant to an appeal as of right.” Commonwealth v. Phillips, 946 A.2d 103, 112 (Pa.Super. 2008), cert. denied, 556 U.S. 1264 , 129 S.Ct. 2450 , 174 L.Ed.2d 240 (2009).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Com. v. Douglas, C.
Furthermore, Appellant has raised a substantial question because it is well settled that “[a] substantial question is raised where an appellant alleges his sentence is excessive due to the sentencing court’s error in applying the [DWE].” Commonwealth v. Phillips, 946 A.2d 103, 112 (Pa. Super. 2008).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Com. v. Varner, E.
(2×)
“Challenges to the discretionary aspects of sentencing do not entitle an appellant to an appeal as of right.” Commonwealth v. Phillips, 946 A.2d 103, 112 (Pa.Super. 2008), cert. denied, 556 U.S. 1264 , 129 S. Ct. 2450 , 174 L.Ed.2d 240 (2009).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Com. v. Goggins, L.
“In general, the imposition of sentence following the revocation of probation is vested within the sound discretion of the trial court, which, absent an abuse of that discretion, will not be disturbed on appeal.” Commonwealth -6- J-S39015-24 v. Phillips, 946 A.2d 103, 112 (Pa. Super. 2008) (citation omitted).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Com. v. Green, C.
“The requirement that an appellant separately set forth the reasons relied upon for allowance of appeal furthers the purpose evident in the Sentencing Code as a whole of limiting any challenges to the trial court’s evaluation of the multitude of factors impinging on the sentencing decision to exceptional cases.” Commonwealth v. Phillips, 946 A.2d 103, 112 (Pa.Super. 2008), cert. denied, 556 U.S. 1264 , 129 S.Ct. 2450 , 174 L.Ed.2d 240 (2009) (emphasis in original) (internal quotation marks omitted).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Com. v. King, I.
“The requirement that an appellant separately set forth the reasons relied upon for allowance of appeal furthers the purpose evident in the Sentencing Code as a whole of limiting any challenges to the trial court’s evaluation of the multitude of factors impinging on the sentencing decision to exceptional cases.” Commonwealth v. Phillips, 946 A.2d 103, 112 (Pa.Super. 2008), cert. denied, 556 U.S. 1264 , 129 S.Ct. 2450 , 174 L.Ed.2d 240 (2009) (quoting Commonwealth v. Williams, 562 A.2d 1385, 1387 (Pa.Super. 1989) (en banc)) (emphasis omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Com. v. Carney, D.
(2×)
“Challenges to the discretionary aspects of sentencing do not entitle an appellant to an appeal as of right.” Commonwealth v. Phillips, 946 A.2d 103, 112 (Pa.Super. 2008), cert. denied, 556 U.S. 1264 , 129 S.Ct. 2450 , 174 L.Ed.2d 240 (2009).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Com. v. Dansby, T.
We have found that a substantial question exists “when the appellant advances a colorable argument that the sentencing judge’s actions were either: (1) inconsistent with a specific provision of the Sentencing Code; or (2) contrary to the fundamental norms which underlie the sentencing process.” -7- J-S25040-24 Commonwealth v. Phillips, 946 A.2d 103, 112 (Pa. Super. 2008) (citation omitted).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Com. v. Delcamp, S.
(2×)
“Challenges to the discretionary aspects of sentencing do not entitle an appellant to an appeal as of right.” Commonwealth v. Phillips, 946 A.2d 103, 112 (Pa.Super. 2008), cert. denied, 556 U.S. 1264 , 129 S.Ct. 2450 , 174 L.Ed.2d 240 (2009).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Com. v. Jenkins, M.
(2×)
“Challenges to the discretionary aspects of sentencing do not entitle an appellant to an appeal as of right.” Commonwealth v. Phillips, 946 A.2d 103, 112 (Pa.Super. 2008), cert. denied, 556 U.S. 1264 , 129 S.Ct. 2450 , 174 L.Ed.2d 240 (2009).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Com. v. Young, G.
(2×)
“Challenges to the discretionary aspects of sentencing do not entitle an appellant to an appeal as of right.” Commonwealth v. Phillips, 946 A.2d 103, 112 (Pa.Super. 2008), cert. denied, 556 U.S. 1264 , 129 S.Ct. 2450 , 174 L.Ed.2d 240 (2009).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Com. v. Sumney, D.
(2×)
“Challenges to the discretionary aspects of sentencing do not entitle an appellant to an appeal as of right.” Commonwealth v. Phillips, 946 A.2d 103, 112 (Pa.Super. 2008), cert. denied, 556 U.S. 1264 , 129 S.Ct. 2450 , 174 L.Ed.2d 240 (2009).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Com. v. Jones, M.
Commonwealth v. Phillips, 946 A.2d 103, 110 (Pa.Super. 2008).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Com. v. Barnes, B.
We have found that a substantial question exists “when the appellant advances a colorable argument that the sentencing judge’s actions were either: (1) inconsistent with a specific provision of the Sentencing Code; or (2) contrary to the fundamental norms which underlie the sentencing process.” Commonwealth v. Phillips, 946 A.2d 103, 112 (Pa. Super. 2008) (citation omitted).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Com. v. Maldonado, J.
“Challenges to the discretionary aspects of sentencing do not entitle an appellant to an appeal as of right.” Commonwealth v. Phillips, 946 A.2d 103, 112 (Pa.Super. 2008), cert. denied, 556 U.S. 1264 , 129 S.Ct. 2450 , 174 L.Ed.2d 240 (2009).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Com. v. Velez-Pacheco, S.
We have found that a substantial question exists “when the appellant advances a colorable argument that the sentencing judge’s actions were either: (1) inconsistent with a specific provision of the Sentencing Code; or (2) contrary to the fundamental norms which underlie the sentencing process.” Commonwealth v. Phillips, 946 A.2d 103, 112 (Pa. Super. 2008) (citation omitted).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Com. v. Delvalle
(2×)
Commonwealth v. Phillips, 946 A.2d 103, 112 (Pa.Super. 2008), appeal denied, 600 Pa. 745 , 964 A.2d 895 (2009), cert. denied, 556 U.S. 1264 , 129 S.Ct. 2450 , 174 L.Ed.2d 240 (2009).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Com. v. Miller, T.
(2×)
“Challenges to the discretionary aspects of sentencing do not entitle an appellant to an appeal as of right.” Commonwealth v. Phillips, 946 A.2d 103, 112 (Pa.Super. 2008), cert. denied, 556 U.S. 1264 , 129 S.Ct. 2450 , 174 L.Ed.2d 240 (2009).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Com. v. Burgos-Nunez, J.
“The requirement that an appellant separately set forth the reasons relied upon for allowance of appeal furthers the purpose evident in the Sentencing Code as a whole of limiting any challenges to the trial court’s evaluation of the multitude of factors impinging -6- J-S29028-23 on the sentencing decision to exceptional cases.” Commonwealth v. Phillips, 946 A.2d 103, 112 (Pa.Super. 2008), cert. denied, 556 U.S. 1264 , 129 S.Ct. 2450 , 174 L.Ed.2d 240 (2009) (quoting Commonwealth v. Williams, 562 A.2d 1385, 1387 (Pa.Super. 1989) (en banc)) (emphasis in original) (internal quotation marks …
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Com. v. Frisch, T.
(2×)
“Challenges to the discretionary aspects of sentencing do not entitle an appellant to an appeal as of right.” Commonwealth v. Phillips, 946 A.2d 103, 112 (Pa.Super. 2008), cert. denied, 556 U.S. 1264 , 129 S.Ct. 2450 , 174 L.Ed.2d 240 (2009).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Com. v. Parker, E.
(2×)
“Challenges to the discretionary aspects of sentencing do not entitle an appellant to an appeal as of right.” Commonwealth v. Phillips, 946 A.2d 103, 112 (Pa.Super. 2008), cert. denied, 556 U.S. 1264 , 129 S.Ct. 2450 , 174 L.Ed.2d 240 (2009).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Com. v. Mendez, E.
Further, “[c]hallenges to the discretionary aspects of sentencing do not entitle an appellant to an appeal as of right.” Commonwealth v. Phillips, 946 A.2d 103, 112 (Pa.Super. 2008), cert. denied, 556 U.S. 1264 , 129 S.Ct. 2450 , 174 L.Ed.2d 240 (2009).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Com. v. Parker, R.
If a correction by this Court may upset the sentencing scheme envisioned by the trial court, the better practice is to remand.” Commonwealth v. Phillips, 946 A.2d 103, 115 (Pa. Super. 2008) (formatting altered and citation omitted). - 15 - J-S25004-23 Date: 10/23/2023 - 16 -
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Com. v. Brooks, S.
We have found that a substantial question exists “when the appellant advances a colorable argument that the sentencing judge’s actions were either: (1) inconsistent with a specific provision of the Sentencing Code; or (2) contrary to the fundamental norms which underlie the sentencing process.” Commonwealth v. Phillips, 946 A.2d 103, 112 (Pa. Super. 2008) (citation omitted), appeal denied, 964 A.2d 895 (Pa. 2009). “[W]e cannot look beyond the statement of questions presented and the prefatory [Rule] 2119(f) statement to determine whether a substantial question exists.” Commonwealth v…
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Com. v. Siderio, T.
Commonwealth v. Phillips, 946 A.2d 103, 112 (Pa.Super. 2008), appeal denied, 600 Pa. 745 , 964 A.2d 895 (2009), cert. denied, 556 U.S. 1264 , 129 S.Ct. 2450 , 174 L.Ed.2d 240 (2009).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Com. v. King, M.
“Challenges to the discretionary aspects of sentencing do not entitle an appellant to an appeal as of right.” Commonwealth v. Phillips, 946 A.2d 103, 112 (Pa.Super. 2008), cert. denied, 556 U.S. 1264 , 129 S.Ct. 2450 , 174 L.Ed.2d 240 (2009).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Com. v. Abdul-Salaam, S.
Commonwealth v. Phillips, 2008 PA Super 30, ¶ 11 , 946 A.2d 103, 108-109 (2008) (internal citations and quotations omitted).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Michael FORBES, Appellant
v.
PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS and Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole, Appellees
v.
PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS and Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole, Appellees
88 MAP 2007.
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.
Apr 30, 2008.
946 A.2d 103
Per Curiam.
Published
ORDER
PER CURIAM.AND NOW, this 30th day of April, 2008, the order of the Commonwealth Court is AFFIRMED. [1]
1
. This Court offers no comment concerning the Commonwealth Court’s determination that all challenges to sentencing aggregation proceed in mandamus as opposed to habeas corpus, see Forbes v. PBPP, 931 A.2d 88, 91 (Pa.Cmwlth.2007), since such question has not been pursued by either party in the present appeal. This disposition is limited to the availability of the extraordinary remedy of mandamus, implicated by a clear right to relief in the form of the performance of ministerial duties required of the government, and only in the absence of any other adequate and appropriate remedies. See Seeton v. Pa. Game Comm’n, 594 Pa. 563, 937 A.2d 1028, 1033 (2007).