bald claim in Pennsylvania

2025Moreover, “a bald claim of excessiveness due to the consecutive nature of a sentence will not -8- J-S37012-25 raise a substantial question.” Commonwealth v. Dodge, 77 A.3d 1263, 1270 (Pa. Super. 2013).

2025See Commonwealth v. Dodge, 77 A.3d 1263, 1270 (Pa. Super. 2013) (“a defendant may raise a substantial question where he receives consecutive sentences within the guideline ranges if the case involves circumstances where the application of the guidelines would be clearly unreasonable, resulting in an excessive sentence; however, a bald claim of excessiveness due to the consecutive nature of a sentence will not raise a substantial question”) (emphasis omitted). - 10 - J-S20013-25 Under our precedent, Appellant's claim presents a substantial question, thus permitting our review.

2024In fact, although there are circumstances under which we will review the consecutive nature of a sentence, this Court has specifically stated that “a bald claim of excessiveness due to the consecutive nature of a sentence will not raise a substantial question.” Swope, 123 A.3d at 339 (Pa. Super. 2015) (citation omitted).

2024Commonwealth v. Mastromarino, 2 A.3d 581, 587 (Pa. Super. 2010)[.] Rather, the imposition of consecutive rather than concurrent sentences will present a substantial question in only “the most extreme circumstances, such as where the aggregate sentence is unduly harsh, considering the nature of the crimes and the length of imprisonment.” Commonwealth v. Lamonda, 52 A.3d 365, 372 (Pa. Super. 2012)[(en banc)]. [An appellant] may raise a substantial question where he receives consecutive sentences within the guideline ranges if the case involves circumstances where the application of the guideline

2026“The imposition of consecutive, rather than concurrent, sentences may raise a substantial question in only the most extreme circumstances, such as where the aggregate sentence is unduly harsh, considering the nature of the crimes and the length of imprisonment.” Commonwealth v. Moury, 992 A.2d 162 , 171- 72 (Pa. Super. 2010). “[H]owever, a bald claim of excessiveness due to the ____________________________________________ 8 We note that Warrington does not address his one-to-two-year sentence for obstruction in his brief.

2024See Commonwealth v. Moury, 992 A.2d 162, 170 (Pa. Super. 2010) (noting that this Court will not accept a bald claim of sentencing error; rather, an appellant must advance a colorable claim that the sentence was inconsistent with a specific provision of the Sentencing Code or contrary to a fundamental norm of the sentencing process).

2024Commonwealth v. Mastromarino, 2 A.3d 581, 587 (Pa. Super. 2010)[.] Rather, the imposition of consecutive rather than concurrent sentences will present a substantial question in only “the most extreme circumstances, such as where the aggregate sentence is unduly harsh, considering the nature of the crimes and the length of imprisonment.” Commonwealth v. Lamonda, 52 A.3d 365, 372 (Pa. Super. 2012)[(en banc)]. [An appellant] may raise a substantial question where he receives consecutive sentences within the guideline ranges if the case involves circumstances where the application of the guideline

2023As such, the imposition of consecutive rather than concurrent sentences will present a substantial question in only “the most extreme circumstances, such as where the aggregate sentence is unduly harsh, considering the nature of the crimes and the length of imprisonment.” Commonwealth v. Lamonda, 52 A.3d 365, 372 (Pa. Super. 2012)[(en banc)]. [An appellant] may raise a substantial question where [s]he receives consecutive sentences within the guideline ranges if the case involves circumstances where the application of the guidelines would be clearly unreasonable, resulting in an excessive sent

2025“Generally speaking, the courts exercise of discretion in imposing consecutive as opposed to concurrent sentences is not viewed as raising a substantial question that would allow the granting of allowance of appeal.” Commonwealth v. Mastromarino, 2 A.3d 581, 586 (Pa. Super. 2010) (citations omitted); see also Commonwealth v. Dodge, 77 A.3d 1263 , 1270 - 19 - J-S24006-25 (Pa. Super. 2013) (explaining that “a bald claim of excessiveness due to the consecutive nature of a sentence will not raise a substantial question” (citations omitted)).

2024Commonwealth v. Mastromarino, 2 A.3d 581, 587 (Pa. Super. 2010)[.] Rather, the imposition of consecutive rather than concurrent sentences will present a substantial question in only “the most extreme circumstances, such as where the aggregate sentence is unduly harsh, considering the nature of the crimes and the length of imprisonment.” Commonwealth v. Lamonda, 52 A.3d 365, 372 (Pa. Super. 2012)[(en banc)]. [An appellant] may raise a substantial question where he receives consecutive sentences within the guideline ranges if the case involves circumstances where the application of the guideline

2023Commonwealth v. Caldwell, 117 A.3d 763, 770 (Pa. Super. 2015) (en banc) (“an excessive sentence claim—in conjunction with an assertion that the [trial] court failed to consider mitigating factors—raises a substantial question.”); Commonwealth v. Bonner, 135 A.3d 592, 604 (Pa. Super. 2016) (same); cf. Commonwealth v. Dodge, 77 A.3d 1263, 1270 (Pa. Super. 2013) (“a bald claim of excessiveness due to the consecutive nature of a sentence will not raise a substantial question.”).

2022“A substantial question exists only 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. Caldwell, 117 A.3d 763, 768 (Pa.Super. 2015) (en banc) (quoting Commonwealth v. Prisk, 13 A.3d 526, 533 (Pa.Super. 2011)). [A] defendant may raise a substantial question where he receives consecutive sentences within the guideline ranges if the case involves circumstances where the application of the

2025“While a bald claim of excessiveness does not present a substantial question for review, a claim that the sentence is manifestly excessive, inflicting too severe a punishment, does present a substantial question.” Commonwealth v. Hicks, 151 A.3d 216, 227 (Pa. Super. 2016) (citation omitted).

2024“While a bald claim of excessiveness does not present a substantial question for review, a claim that the sentence is manifestly excessive, inflicting too severe a punishment, does present a substantial question.” Commonwealth v. Hicks, 151 A.3d 216, 227 (Pa. Super. 2016).

2026“While a bald claim of excessiveness does not present a substantial question for review, a -6- J-S42010-25 claim that the sentence is manifestly excessive, inflicting too severe a punishment does present a substantial question.” Commonwealth v. Haynes, 125 A.3d 800, 807-808 (Pa. Super. 2015), appeal denied, 140 A.3d 12 (Pa. 2016).

2023“While a bald claim of excessiveness does not present a substantial question for review, a claim that the sentence is manifestly excessive, inflicting too severe a punishment, does present a substantial question.” Commonwealth v. Hicks, 151 A.3d 216, 227 (Pa. Super. 2016), citing Commonwealth v. Haynes, 125 A.3d 800, 807-808 (Pa. Super. 2015), appeal denied, 167 A.3d 1287 (Pa. 2017).

2026Commonwealth v. Diehl, 140 A.3d 34, 45 (Pa. Super. 2016) (citation omitted).

2018See also Commonwealth v. Diehl, 140 A.3d 34, 45 , (Pa. Super. 2016) (“A bald claim of excessiveness due to the consecutive nature of a sentence will not raise a substantial question.”).

2022Commonwealth v. Swope, 123 A.3d 333, 338-39 (Pa.Super. 2015) (emphasis in original). “[T]his Court has recognized the imposition of -7- J-A13044-22 consecutive, rather than concurrent, sentences may raise a substantial question in only the most extreme circumstances, such as where the aggregate sentence is unduly harsh, considering the nature of the crimes and the length of imprisonment.” Commonwealth v. Austin, 66 A.3d 798, 808 (Pa.Super. 2013) (internal citations and quotation marks omitted).

2018See, e.g., Commonwealth v Austin, 66 A.3d 798, 808 (Pa. Super. 2013).

2019See Commonwealth v. Johnson, 961 A.2d 877, 880 (Pa. Super. 2008). [A] defendant may raise a substantial question where he receives consecutive sentences within the guideline ranges if the case involves circumstances where the application of the guidelines would be clearly unreasonable, resulting in an excessive sentence; however, a bald claim of excessiveness due to the consecutive nature of a sentence will not raise a substantial question.

2016See Commonwealth v. Johnson, 961 A.2d 877, 880 (Pa. Super. 2008). “[T]he imposition of consecutive, rather than concurrent sentences, may raise a substantial question in only the most extreme circumstances, such as where the aggregate sentence is unduly harsh, considering the nature of the crimes and the length of imprisonment.” Commonwealth v. Lamonda, 52 A.3d -6- J-S08038-16 365, 372 (Pa. Super. 2012) (en banc); see also Commonwealth v. Dodge, 77 A.3d 1263, 1270 (Pa. Super. 2013) (stating that “a defendant may raise a substantial question where he receives consecutive sentences within the gu

2021We have also concluded that “a bald claim of excessiveness due to the consecutive nature of a sentence will not raise a substantial question.” Radecki, supra at 469 (emphasis removed and citation omitted).

2020Whether a challenge to consecutive sentences within the guideline ranges raises a substantial question was recently discussed by this Court in Commonwealth v. Radecki, 180 A.3d 441, 469 (Pa. Super. 2018): As we explained in [Commonwealth v.] Dodge[, 77 A. 3d 1263 (Pa. Super. 2013)]: A defendant may raise a substantial question where he receives consecutive sentences within the guideline ranges if the case involves circumstances where the application of the guidelines would be clearly unreasonable, resulting in an excessive sentence; however, a bald claim of excessiveness due to the consecutive

2018See, e.g., Commonwealth v. Wright, 832 A.2d 1104, 1107 (Pa. Super. 2003) (“[Wright’s] claim here, that consecutive sentences are too harsh, is little more than a bald claim of excessiveness. [Wright] simply has not raised a substantial question and so is not entitled to review.”).

2016See Commonwealth v. Wright, 832 A.2d 1104, 1107 (Pa. Super. 2003) (a bald claim of excessiveness does not raise a substantial question); Commonwealth v. Moury, 992 A.2d 162, 175 (Pa. Super. 2010) (concluding argument “[t]hat the court refused to weigh the proposed mitigating factors as Appellant wished, absent more, does not raise a substantial question.”).

2017However, we find the bald claim of excessiveness Appellant set -6- J-S60035-17 forth in his Rule 2119(f) Statement does not raise a substantial question for our review.3 See Commonwealth v. Griffin, 65 A.3d 932 (Pa.Super. 2013) (finding allegation that trial court failed to consider particular circumstances of facts in Appellant’s case goes to the weight accorded to various sentencing factors and does not raise a substantial question); Commonwealth v. Fisher, 47 A.3d 155, 159 (Pa.Super. 2012) (stating that “a bald assertion that a sentence is excessive does not by itself raise a substantial qu

2017However, we find the bald claim of excessiveness Appellant set -6- J-S60035-17 forth in his Rule 2119(f) Statement does not raise a substantial question for our review.3 See Commonwealth v. Griffin, 65 A.3d 932 (Pa.Super. 2013) (finding allegation that trial court failed to consider particular circumstances of facts in Appellant’s case goes to the weight accorded to various sentencing factors and does not raise a substantial question); Commonwealth v. Fisher, 47 A.3d 155, 159 (Pa.Super. 2012) (stating that “a bald assertion that a sentence is excessive does not by itself raise a substantial qu

2021See Commonwealth v. Ahmad, 961 A.2d 884, 887 (Pa. Super. 2008). [A] defendant may raise a substantial question where he receives consecutive sentences within the guideline ranges - 20 - J-S32006-20 if the case involves circumstances where the application of the guidelines would be clearly unreasonable, resulting in an excessive sentence; however, a bald claim of excessiveness due to the consecutive nature of a sentence will not raise a substantial question.

2021See Commonwealth v. Ahmad, 961 A.2d 884, 887 (Pa. Super. 2008). [A] defendant may raise a substantial question where he receives consecutive sentences within the guideline ranges if the case involves circumstances where the application of the guidelines would be clearly unreasonable, resulting in an excessive sentence; however, a bald claim of excessiveness due to the consecutive nature of a sentence will not raise a substantial question.

2020See Commonwealth v. Titus, 816 A.2d 251, 255-56 (Pa. Super. 2003) (a bald claim of excessiveness does not raise a substantial question for review).

2016See Commonwealth v. Titus, 816 A.2d 251, 255 (Pa. Super. 2003) (stating that a bald claim of excessiveness, which does not raise a violation of the Sentencing Code or a norm underlying the -7- J-S48035-16 sentencing process does not raise a substantial question).

2017See Commonwealth v. Trippett, 932 A.2d 188, 201-03 (Pa.Super. 2007) (holding bald allegations of excessiveness insufficient to permit discretionary review). 5 35 P.S. § 780-115(a) provides: Any person convicted of a second or subsequent offense under clause (30) of subsection (a) of section 13 of this act [35 P.S. § 113] or of a similar offense under any statute of the United States or of any state may be imprisoned for a term up to twice the term otherwise authorized, fined an amount up to twice that otherwise authorized, or both. 35 P.S. § 780-115(a). -7- J-S04045-17 Appellant has not raised

2014See Commonwealth v. Trippett, 932 A.2d 188, 202 (Pa. Super. 2007) (noting that a bald claim of excessive sentence does not raise a substantial question).

2017Commonwealth v. Malovich, 903 A.2d 1247, 1252 (Pa. Super. 2006) (citing Commonwealth v. Mouzon, 812 A.2d 626, 627 (Pa. 2002) (“Appellant must support his assertions by articulating the way in which the court's actions violated the sentencing code”).

2015Given the nature of his Rule 2119(f) statement, we cannot conclude he has raised a substantial question.11 See Bullock, supra; see Malovich, supra; see also Commonwealth v. Dodge, 77 A.3d 1263, 1270 (Pa. Super. 2013) (holding that “a bald claim of excessiveness … will not raise a substantial question”).

2024As this Court has held, “a bald claim of excessiveness does not present a substantial claim for review.” Commonwealth v. Zirkle, 107 A.3d 127, 133 (Pa. Super. 2014).

2018However, this Court has addressed the merits of claims that “the decision to sentence consecutively raises the aggregate sentence to, what appears upon its face to be, an excessive level in light of the criminal conduct in this case.” Commonwealth v. Zirkle, 107 A.3d 127, 133-34 (Pa. Super. 2014) (internal quotation marks omitted). -4- J-S68027-17 it, deliberately chose not to do it. … You didn’t much care what the consequences were, and you chose to continue to live your life that way.

2024According to the Superior Court, apparently by extrapolating from the bald claim for wrongful death damages in the Underlying Lawsuit, 9 there is also potentially a claim for other types of damages rooted in “‘emotional distress, mental distress or injury, or any similar injury,’ none of which would be the direct result of bodily harm to the decedent's family itself.” 8 The opinion omits the second sentence of the definition of bodily injury which states: “Bodily injury does not include emotional distress, mental anguish, humiliation, mental distress or injury, or any similar injury unless the

2024According to the Superior Court, apparently by extrapolating from the bald claim for wrongful death damages in the Underlying Lawsuit,9 there is also potentially a claim for other types of damages rooted in “‘emotional distress, mental distress or injury, or any similar injury,’ none of which would be the direct result of bodily harm to the decedent's family itself.” 8 The opinion omits the second sentence of the definition of bodily injury which states: “Bodily injury does not include emotional distress, mental anguish, humiliation, mental distress or injury, or any similar injury unless the

2022“A substantial question exists only 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. Caldwell, 117 A.3d 763, 768 (Pa.Super. 2015) (en banc) (quoting Commonwealth v. Prisk, 13 A.3d 526, 533 (Pa.Super. 2011)). [A] defendant may raise a substantial question where he receives consecutive sentences within the guideline ranges if the case involves circumstances where the application of the

2017As this Court has emphasized, “the key to resolving the preliminary substantial question inquiry is whether the decision to sentence consecutively raises the aggregate sentence to, what appears upon its face to be, an excessive level in light of the criminal conduct at issue in the case.” Commonwealth v. Prisk, 13 A.3d 526, 533 (Pa. Super. 2011) (citation and quotation omitted).

2021Commonwealth v. Dodge, 77 A.3d 1263, 1270 (Pa. Super. 2013) (emphasis in original and internal citations omitted); See Commonwealth v. Riggs, 63 A.3d 780, 786 (Pa. Super. 2012) (averment that court “failed to consider relevant sentencing criteria, including the protection of the public, the gravity of the underlying offense and the rehabilitative needs” of the defendant raised a substantial question).

2021Commonwealth v. Dodge, 77 A.3d 1263, 1270 (Pa. Super. 2013) (emphasis in original and some internal citations omitted); See Commonwealth v. Riggs, 63 A.3d 780, 786 (Pa. Super. 2012) (averment that court “failed to consider relevant sentencing criteria, including the protection of the public, the gravity of the underlying offense and the rehabilitative needs” of the defendant raised a substantial question). - 25 - J-S32005-20 & J-S32007-20 In the current action, Appellant presents a substantial question by setting forth an argument that his consecutive sentence is contrary to the fundamental no

2018Compare Commonwealth v. Zeigler, 112 A.3d 656, 662 (Pa. Super. 2015) (“Generally, a bald excessiveness claim does not raise a substantial question.”) with Commonwealth v. Haynes, 125 A.3d 800 , 807–08 (Pa. Super. 2015) (“While a bald claim of excessiveness does not present a substantial question for review, a claim that the sentence is manifestly excessive, inflicting too severe a punishment, does present a substantial question.”).

2017Compare Commonwealth v. Zeigler, 112 A.3d 656, 662 (Pa. Super. 2015) (“Generally, a bald excessiveness claim does not raise a substantial question.”) with Commonwealth v. Haynes, 125 A.3d 800 , 807–08 (Pa. Super. 2015) (“While a bald claim of excessiveness does not present a substantial question for review, a claim that the sentence is manifestly excessive, inflicting too severe a punishment, does present a substantial question.”). *Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.

2017Commonwealth v. Dodge, 77 A.3d 1263, 1270 (Pa. Super. 2013). - 12 - J-S33007-17 Moreover, we have held that “an excessive sentence claim – in conjunction with an assertion that the court failed to consider mitigating factors – raises a substantial question.” Commonwealth v. Swope, 123 A.3d 333, 339 (Pa. Super. 2015) (quoting Commonwealth v. Raven, 97 A.3d 1244, 1253 (Pa. Super. 2014)).

2016“An appellant making an excessiveness claim raises a substantial question when he sufficiently articulates the manner in which the sentence violates either a specific provision of the sentencing scheme set forth in the Sentencing Code or a particular fundamental norm underlying the sentencing process.” Commonwealth v. Raven, 97 A.3d 1244, 1253 (Pa. Super. 2014), appeal denied, 105 A.3d 736 (Pa. 2014) (internal citations and quotations omitted). -3- J-S39007-16 Here, Appellant’s contention merely consists of a bald claim of excessiveness, articulating no argument or reasons how the sentence vio

2020Commonwealth v. Sarvey, 199 A.3d 436 , 455–56 (Pa.Super. 2018). [A] defendant may raise a substantial question where he receives consecutive sentences within the guideline ranges if the case involves circumstances where the application of the guidelines would be clearly unreasonable, resulting in an excessive sentence; - 13 - J-S30034-20 however, a bald claim of excessiveness due to the consecutive nature of a sentence will not raise a substantial question.

2020Accord Commonwealth v. Mastromarino, 2 A.3d 581, 587 (Pa.Super. 2010) (“[A substantial question is presented when] the decision to sentence consecutively raises the aggregate sentence to, what appears upon its face to be, an excessive level in light of the criminal conduct at issue”). -4- J-S61035-19 Commonwealth v. Sarvey, 199 A.3d 436 , 455–56 (Pa.Super. 2018). [A] defendant may raise a substantial question where he receives consecutive sentences within the guideline ranges if the case involves circumstances where the application of the guidelines would be clearly unreasonable, resulting in

2018Mouzon, supra at 627 .

2018See Mouzon, 812 A.2d at 627 .