Treatment trajectory · 2008 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2008
2017
2026
Cited for
At page 1309 Absence of substantial question regarding sentencing factors32 citing casesfinding absence of substantial question where appellant argued the trial court failed to adequately consider mitigating factors and to impose an individualized sentence
- Com. v. Leone, P., No. 3307 EDA 2017 (Pa. Super. Ct. Nov. 6, 2018).unpublished(finding absence of substantial question where appellant argued the trial court failed to adequately consider mitigating factors and to impose an individualized sentence)
- Com. v. Ferrara, M., No. 1187 WDA 2017 (Pa. Super. Ct. Oct. 22, 2018).unpublished(finding absence of substantial question where appellant argued the trial court failed to adequately consider mitigating factors and to impose an individualized sentence)
- Com. v. Woolfork, P., No. 2982 EDA 2017 (Pa. Super. Ct. July 24, 2018).unpublished(finding absence of substantial question where appellant argued the trial court failed to adequately consider mitigating factors and to impose an individualized sentence)
- Com. v. Drummond, R., No. 1154 MDA 2017 (Pa. Super. Ct. Jan. 19, 2018).unpublished(a claim that a trial court failed to appropriately consider an appellant’s rehabilitative needs does not present a substantial question)
- Com. v. Wallace, D., No. 1160 MDA 2016 (Pa. Super. Ct. Feb. 13, 2017).unpublishedS01017/17 “[O]rdinarily, a claim that the sentencing court failed to consider or accord proper weight to a specific sentencing factor does not raise a substantial question.” Commonwealth v. Caldwell, 117 A.3d 763, 769 (Pa. Super. 2015) (ci…
- Com. v. Campbell, C., No. 1987 EDA 2015 (Pa. Super. Ct. Aug. 9, 2016).unpublished(claim that trial court failed to appropriately consider appellant's rehabilitative needs does not present substantial question)
- Com. v. Holder, C., No. 1401 WDA 2015 (Pa. Super. Ct. June 29, 2016).unpublished(claim that trial court failed to appropriately consider appellant's rehabilitative needs does not present substantial question)
- Commonwealth v. Swope, 123 A.3d 333 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2015).publishedSee Commonwealth v. Cannon, 954 A.2d 1222, 1228-29 (Pa.Super.2008), appeal denied, 600 Pa. 743 , 964 A.2d 893 (2009) (claim that the trial court failed to consider the defendant’s rehabilitative needs, age, and educational background did n…
- Com. v. Lenkiewicz, M., No. 1417 WDA 2014 (Pa. Super. Ct. July 6, 2015).unpublishedAdditionally, “[t]his Court has held on numerous occasions that a claim of inadequate consideration of mitigating factors does not raise -4- J-S36016-15 a substantial question for our review.” Commonwealth v. Disalvo, 70 A.3d 900, 903 (Pa.…
- Commonwealth v. Caldwell, 117 A.3d 763 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2015).published See Commonwealth v. Cannon, 954 A.2d 1222 , 1228– 29 (Pa.Super.2008), appeal denied, 964 A.2d 893 ([Pa.]2009) (claim that the trial court failed to consider the defendant’s rehabilitative needs, age, and educational background did not pres…
Show 5 more citing cases
- Com. v. Kline, A., No. 166 MDA 2014 (Pa. Super. Ct. Nov. 3, 2014).unpublishedSee Commonwealth v. Johnson, 961 A.2d 877 (Pa.Super.2008), appeal denied, 968 A.2d 1280 (Pa.2009); see also Commonwealth v. -5- J-A26032-14 Coolbaugh, 770 A.2d 788, 793 (Pa.Super.2001) (“Appellant’s claim that the court did not consider hi…
- Commonwealth v. Griffin, 65 A.3d 932 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2013).publishedSee Commonwealth v. Cannon, 954 A.2d 1222, 1228-29 (Pa.Super.2008), appeal denied, 600 Pa. 743 , 964 A.2d 893 (2009) (claim that the trial court failed to consider the defendant’s rehabilitative needs, age, and educational background did n…
- Commonwealth v. Hennel, 12 Pa. D. & C.5th 308 (2010).published(claim that court did not give adequate consideration to defendant’s rehabilitative needs and mitigating circumstances did not present substantial question)
- Com. v. Kunkle, S., No. 1722 MDA 2014 (Pa. Super. Ct. Sept. 11, 2015).unpublished See Disalvo, Berry, Cruz-Centeno, and Bershad, supra. We, therefore, deny Appellant’s petition for allowance of appeal. -7- J-S34043-15 Judgment of sentence affirmed.
- Com. v. Brown, A., No. 2021 WDA 2014 (Pa. Super. Ct. Jan. 19, 2016).unpublished(finding absence of substantial question where appellant argued the trial court failed to adequately consider mitigating factors and to impose an individualized sentence)
At page 1305 cited at this page1 citing case
- Commonwealth v. Dixon, 959 A.2d 399 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2008).published See Boyle, supra; Bernardo, supra. Bershad, 693 A.2d at 1305-1306 (emphasis added). ¶ 12 In the case at bar, the issue is whether the Court of Common Pleas of Dauphin County abused its discretion in concluding that venue was improper in Da…
At page 1306 cited at this page1 citing case
- Commonwealth v. Dixon, 985 A.2d 720 (Pa. 2009).published Bershad, 693 A.2d at 1306 (emphasis added).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
OFFICE OF DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL
v.
Peter D. DELANEY
v.
Peter D. DELANEY
No. 323 Disciplinary Docket No. 3.
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.
May 12, 1997.
Published opinion
693 A.2d 1303
Published
ORDER
PER CURIAM:AND NOW, this 12th day of May, 1997, upon consideration of the Report and Recommendations of the Disciplinary Board dated March 24,1997, it is hereby
ORDERED that PETER D. DELANEY be and he is SUSPENDED from the Bar of this Commonwealth for a period of one (1) year and one day, and he shall comply with all the provisions of Rule 217 Pa.R.D.E.
It is further ORDERED that respondent shall pay costs to the Disciplinary Board pursuant to Rule 208(g), Pa.R.D.E.