appellant making an excessiveness claim in Pennsylvania

2024Bishop, supra. “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 omitted).

2024Bishop, supra. “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 omitted).

2015An appellant making an excessiveness claim raises a substantial question when -5- J-S28035-15 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 particular fundamental norm underlying the sentencing process.” Commonwealth v. Mouzon, 812 A.2d 617, 627 (Pa. 2002).

2015An 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. Mouzon, 812 A.2d 617, 627 (Pa. 2002).

2022See, e.g., Commonwealth v. Andrews, 213 A.3d 1004, 1017 (Pa. Super. 2019) (“a generic claim that a sentence is excessive does not raise a substantial question for our review.” (citation omitted)); Caldwell, 117 A.3d at 768 (“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.”).

2018“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.” Id. (citations omitted).

2024Bishop, supra. “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 omitted).

2024Bishop, supra. “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 omitted).

2022A sentencing court has discretion to impose its sentence concurrently or consecutively to other sentences being imposed at the same time or to sentences already imposed." Commonwealth v. Pass, 914 A.2d 442, 446-447 (Pa. Super. 2006) (citation omitted).

2019A sentencing court has "discretion to impose its sentence concurrently or consecutively to other sentences being imposed at the same time or to sentences already imposed." Commonwealth v. Pass, 914 A.2d 442, 446-447 (Pa. Super. 2006) (citation omitted).

2022See, e.g., Commonwealth v. Andrews, 213 A.3d 1004, 1017 (Pa. Super. 2019) (“a generic claim that a sentence is excessive does not raise a substantial question for our review.” (citation omitted)); Caldwell, 117 A.3d at 768 (“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.”).

2022See Commonwealth v. Raven, 97 A.3d 1244, 1253 (Pa. Super. 2014) (citation and quotation marks omitted) (“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.’”); see also -7- Commonwealth v. Dunphy, 20 A.3d 1215, 1222 (Pa. Super. 2011) (finding that a claim regarding trial court’s failure to offer specific reasons for sentence raises a substantial

2021See Grays, supra. “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) (internal citations omitted).

2019“When imposing a sentence, the sentencing court must consider the factors set out in 42 [Pa.C.S.A.] § 9721(b), that is, the protection of the public, gravity of offense in relation to impact on victim and community, and rehabilitative needs of the defendant.” Commonwealth v. Fullin, 892 A.2d 843, 847-848 (Pa.Super. 2006) (citations omitted).

2018See Commonwealth v. Swope, 123 A.3d 333, 339 (Pa. Super. 2015) (claim that consecutive sentences are unduly excessive together with claim that sentencing court failed to consider defendant’s rehabilitative needs and mitigating factors presents substantial question); see also Commonwealth v. Raven, 97 A.3d 1244, 1253 (Pa. Super. 2014) (“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 Code or a particular fundamental norm underlying the sentencing p

2016Absent such efforts, an objection to a discretionary aspect of a sentence is waived.” Commonwealth v. McAfee, 849 A.2d 270, 275 (Pa. Super. 2004) (citation omitted).

2015See Commonwealth v. Lilley, 978 A.2d 995, 998 (Pa.Super.2009) (observing that Anders requires review of issues otherwise waived on appeal). -6- J-S26042-15 “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 omitted).

2015“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 omitted). “[T]his Court has held on numerous occasions that a claim of inadequate consideration of mitigating factors does not raise a substantial question for our review.” Common

2015An appellant presents a substantial question “when a sentence of total confinement, in excess of the original sentence, is imposed as a result of a technical violation of parole or probation.” Commonwealth v. Sierra, 752 A.2d 910, 913 (Pa.Super.2000).

2005Commonwealth v. Vega, 850 A.2d 1277, 1280 (Pa.Super.2004).

2004Commonwealth v. Kenner, 784 A.2d 808, 811 (Pa.Super.2001), appeal denied, 568 Pa. 695 , 796 A.2d 979 (2002). ¶ 9 Under Commonwealth v. Mouzon, 571 Pa. 419 , 812 A.2d 617 (2002), 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 norm underlying the sentencing process.” Id. at 435 , 812 A.2d at 627 .