Scheib v. AP Realty, Inc., 45 A.3d 405 (Pa. 2012).

examined Cited as authority (verbatim quote) Com. v. Wright, T.

Pa. Super. Ct. · 2014 · quote attribution · 1 verbatim quote · confidence high

allegation that the sentencing court focused exclusively on the seriousness of the crime - 12 - j-s68005-14 raises at least a plausible argument that the sentencing court did not follow the requirements of section 9721

examined Cited as authority (verbatim quote) Com. v. Wright, T.

Pa. Super. Ct. · 2014 · quote attribution · 1 verbatim quote · confidence high

allegation that the sentencing court focused exclusively on the seriousness of the crime - 12 - j-s68005-14 raises at least a plausible argument that the sentencing court did not follow the requirements of section 9721

discussed Cited as authority (rule) Com. v. Jackson, T.

Pa. Super. Ct. · 2024 · confidence medium

This Court has held that “an allegation that the sentencing court focused exclusively on the seriousness of the crime raises a substantial question for review on appeal.” Commonwealth v. Lewis, 45 A.3d 405, 411 (Pa.Super. 2012) (en banc).

discussed Cited as authority (rule) Com. v. Blazier, R.

Pa. Super. Ct. · 2023 · confidence medium

In addition, an allegation that the sentencing court focused exclusively on the seriousness of the crime raises a substantial question for review on appeal.” Com. v. Lewis, 45 A.3d 405, 411 (Pa.Super. 2012).

discussed Cited as authority (rule) Com. v. Bonafide, N.

Pa. Super. Ct. · 2021 · confidence medium

In reviewing a sentence on appeal, the appellate court shall vacate the sentence and remarid the case to the sentencing court with instructions if it finds: (1) the sentencing court purported to sentence within the sentencing guidelines but applied the guidelines erroneously; (2) the sentencing court sentenced within the sentencing guidelines but the case involves circumstances where the application of the guidelines would be clearly unreasonable; or (3) the sentencing court sentenced outside the sentencing guidelines and the sentence is unreasonable, In all other cases{,] the appellate court …

cited Cited as authority (rule) Com. v. Stouter, J., Jr.

Pa. Super. Ct. · 2019 · confidence medium

Commonwealth v. Lewis, 45 A.3d 405, 411 (Pa. Super. 2012).

cited Cited as authority (rule) Com. v. Armstrong, M.

Pa. Super. Ct. · 2019 · confidence medium

Commonwealth v. Lewis, 45 A.3d 405, 409 (Pa. Super.

discussed Cited as authority (rule) Com. v. Knox, L.

Pa. Super. Ct. · 2019 · confidence medium

Commonwealth v. Lewis, 45 A.3d 405, 411 (Pa.Super. 2012) (en banc) (finding that allegations that the sentencing court focused exclusively on the seriousness of the crime raises a plausible argument that the court did not follow the requirements of section 9721 of Sentencing Guidelines); see also Commonwealth v. Downing, 990 A.2d 788, 792 (Pa.Super. 2010) (holding that a claim that the court relied on improper factor raises substantial question).

discussed Cited as authority (rule) Com. v. Knox, L.

Pa. Super. Ct. · 2019 · confidence medium

Commonwealth v. Lewis, 45 A.3d 405, 411 (Pa.Super. 2012) (en banc) (finding that allegations that the sentencing court focused exclusively on the seriousness of the crime raises a plausible argument that the court did not follow the requirements of section 9721 of Sentencing Guidelines); see also Commonwealth v. Downing, 990 A.2d 788, 792 (Pa.Super. 2010) (holding that a claim that the court relied on improper factor raises substantial question).

cited Cited as authority (rule) Com. v. Newsome, B.

Pa. Super. Ct. · 2018 · confidence medium

See Pa.R.Crim.P. 607; Commonwealth v. Lewis, 45 A.3d 405, 410 (Pa. Super. 2012) (en banc).

discussed Cited as authority (rule) Com. v. Wilson, T.

Pa. Super. Ct. · 2018 · confidence medium

Id., citing Commonwealth v. Lewis, 45 A.3d 405, 411-413 (Pa. Super. 2012) (affirming statutory maximum sentence of not less than ten nor more than twenty years’ incarceration for Lewis’ PWID conviction where it was his sixth PWID conviction and he sold drugs since he was seventeen years old).

cited Cited as authority (rule) Com. v. Cabrera, A.

Pa. Super. Ct. · 2017 · confidence medium

Commonwealth v. Lewis, 45 A.3d 405, 411 (Pa.Super. 2012).

discussed Cited as authority (rule) Com. v. Street, L.

Pa. Super. Ct. · 2016 · confidence medium

Zeigler, supra; Commonwealth v. Lewis, 45 A.3d 405, 411 (Pa.Super. 2012) (en banc) (an allegation that the sentencing court focused exclusively on the seriousness of the crime raises a substantial question); Commonwealth v. Macias, 968 A.2d 773, 776 (Pa.Super. 2009) (“an averment that the court sentenced based solely on the seriousness of the offense and failed to consider all relevant factors raises a substantial question.” (citations omitted)).

discussed Cited as authority (rule) Com. v. Chess, W.

Pa. Super. Ct. · 2016 · confidence medium

Prior to reaching the merits of a discretionary sentencing issue: [W]e conduct a four part analysis to determine: (1) whether appellant has filed a timely notice of appeal, see Pa.R.A.P. 902 and 903; (2) whether the issue was properly preserved at sentencing or in a motion to reconsider and modify sentence, see Pa.R.Crim.P. [720]; (3) whether appellant’s brief has a fatal defect, Pa.R.A.P. 2119(f); and (4) whether there is a substantial question that the sentence appealed from is not appropriate under the Sentencing Code, 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9781(b). -6- J-S33004-16 Commonwealth v. Lewis, 45 A.3…

discussed Cited as authority (rule) Com. v. Sanchez, D. (2×) also: Cited "see"

Pa. Super. Ct. · 2016 · confidence medium

Commonwealth v. Lewis, 45 A.3d 405, 410 (Pa. Super. 2012) (en banc) (some citations omitted).

cited Cited as authority (rule) Com. v. Yingling, C.

Pa. Super. Ct. · 2016 · confidence medium

Commonwealth v. Lewis, 45 A.3d 405, 411 (Pa. Super. 2012) (citation omitted).

cited Cited as authority (rule) Com. v. Dehart, Jr., R.

Pa. Super. Ct. · 2015 · confidence medium

Commonwealth v. Lewis, 45 A.3d 405, 410 (Pa. Super. 2012).

cited Cited as authority (rule) Com. v. Depaula, R.

Pa. Super. Ct. · 2015 · confidence medium

Commonwealth v. Lewis, 45 A.3d 405, 408 (Pa. Super. 2012).

discussed Cited as authority (rule) Commonwealth v. Cruz (2×) also: Cited "see"

Pa. Super. Ct. · 2013 · confidence medium

Commonwealth v. Lewis, 45 A.3d 405, 408 (Pa.Super.2012).

cited Cited as authority (rule) Commonwealth v. Griffin

Pa. Super. Ct. · 2013 · confidence medium

Commonwealth v. Lewis, 45 A.3d 405, 411 (Pa.Super.2012).

discussed Cited as authority (rule) Commonwealth v. Glass (2×)

Pa. Super. Ct. · 2012 · confidence medium

Commonwealth v. Lewis, 45 A.3d 405, 410 (Pa.Super.2012).

discussed Cited "see" Com. v. Elvin, E.

Pa. Super. Ct. · 2023 · signal: see · confidence high

See Commonwealth v. Lewis, 45 A.3d 405, 411 (Pa. Super. 2012) (concluding appellant raised a substantial question by alleging the sentencing court focused exclusively on one sentencing factor); Commonwealth v. G.D.M., 926 A.2d 984, 991 (Pa. Super. 2007) (recognizing a substantial question exists where appellant claimed a manifestly excessive sentence resulted from the imposition of consecutive sentences).

discussed Cited "see" Com. v. Ritter, A.

Pa. Super. Ct. · 2022 · signal: see · confidence high

See Commonwealth v. Lewis, 45 A.3d 405, 411 (Pa. Super. 2012) (en banc) (claim that sentencing court focused exclusively on seriousness of offense raised substantial question); Commonwealth v. Downing, 990 A.2d 788, 793 (Pa. Super. 2010) (failure to consider rehabilitative needs and protection of society raised substantial question); Commonwealth v. Bromley, 862 A.2d 598, 604 (Pa. Super. 2004) (substantial question existed where appellant claimed trial court sentenced in aggravated-range without adequate reasons).

discussed Cited "see" Com. v. Velez, J. (2×)

Pa. Super. Ct. · 2022 · signal: see · confidence high

See Commonwealth v. Lewis, 45 A.3d 405, 411 (Pa. Super. 2012) (finding allegations that the sentencing court focused exclusively on the seriousness of the crime raises a substantial question); Commonwealth v. Raven, 97 A.3d 1244, 1253 (Pa. Super. 2014) (stating that a sentencing court’s failure to consider mitigating circumstances raises a substantial question); Commonwealth v. Caldwell, 117 A.3d 763, 770 (Pa. Super. 2015) (stating that a claim that a sentence was excessive in light of certain mitigating factors raises a substantial question). -4- J-S37012-21 We therefore proceed to the meri…

discussed Cited "see" Com. v. Skinner, K.

Pa. Super. Ct. · 2020 · signal: see · confidence high

See Commonwealth v. Lewis, 45 A.3d 405, 409 (Pa. Super. 2012) (appellant’s “argument that his version of the events was more credible than the Commonwealth’s version goes to the weight of the evidence, not its sufficiency.”).

discussed Cited "see" Com. v. Groves, L.

Pa. Super. Ct. · 2020 · signal: see · confidence high

See Commonwealth v. Lewis, 45 A.3d 405, 409 (Pa. Super. 2012) (appellant’s “argument that his version of the events was more credible than the Commonwealth’s version goes to the weight of the evidence, not its sufficiency.”).

discussed Cited "see" Com. v. Akhmedov, K.

Pa. Super. Ct. · 2019 · signal: see · confidence high

See Commonwealth v. Lewis, 45 A.3d 405, 411 (Pa. Super. 2012). [W]here the sentencing judge had the benefit of a presentence investigation report, it will be presumed that he or she was aware of the relevant information regarding the defendant’s character and weighed those considerations along with mitigating statutory factors.

discussed Cited "see" Com. v. Lewis, K.

Pa. Super. Ct. · 2019 · signal: see · confidence high

See Commonwealth v. Lewis, 45 A.3d 405, 410 (Pa. Super. 2012) (en banc) (“In order to preserve a claim of weight of the evidence for appellate review, the issue must be raised with the trial judge in a motion for a new trial either orally prior to sentencing, by written motion prior to sentencing, or in a post-sentence motion.”) (citing Pa.R.Crim.P. 607).

discussed Cited "see" Com. v. Martin, C.

Pa. Super. Ct. · 2017 · signal: see · confidence high

See Commonwealth v. Lewis, 45 A.3d 405, 410 (Pa. Super. 2012) (en banc) (“In order to preserve a claim of weight of the evidence for appellate review, the issue must be raised with the trial judge in a motion for a new trial either orally prior to sentencing, by written motion prior to sentencing, or in a post- sentence motion.”) (citing Pa.R.Crim.P. 607).

cited Cited "see" Com. v. Samuels, J.

Pa. Super. Ct. · 2016 · signal: see · confidence high

See Commonwealth v. Lewis, 45 A.3d 405, 411 (Pa.Super.2012) (Appellant raised substantial question by alleging that sentencing court focused exclusively on seriousness of his crime).

discussed Cited "see, e.g." Com. v. Hopper, J.

Pa. Super. Ct. · 2022 · signal: see also · confidence low

See also 204 Pa. Code § 303.9 (stating that “[w]hen the [guidelines] sentence recommendation is higher than that required by a mandatory sentencing statute, the court shall consider the guideline[s] sentence recommendation”). … Brown, 240 A.3d at 973-74 (emphasis in original) (quoting Lewis, 45 A.3d at 411-12 ).

discussed Cited "see, e.g." Com. v. Hynson, J.

Pa. Super. Ct. · 2017 · signal: see also · confidence medium

See also Commonwealth v. Lewis, 45 A.3d 405, 409 (Pa.Super. 2012) (reiterating that sufficiency of evidence review does not include assessment of credibility of witness’ testimony; if challenge requires court to review credibility of witness’ testimony, claim is actually weight of evidence challenge).

cited Cited "see, e.g." Com. v. Pozza, A.

Pa. Super. Ct. · 2014 · signal: see also · confidence medium

In all other cases[,] the appellate court shall affirm the sentence imposed by the sentencing court. 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9781; see also Commonwealth v. Lewis, 45 A.3d 405, 411 (Pa. Super. 2012).