31 Pennsylvania opinions name it 3 courts 2000–2025 6 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Pennsylvania courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Commonwealth v. Christinegreen2 sentences2019The only sentencing challenge that Appellant preserved before the trial court was his claim that there were "numerous other sentencing alternatives that could have been appropriately imposed in this case ... [more specifically,] a county sentence." Motion for Reconsideration of Sentence, 4/19/18, at 1. 6 This Court has held that "a generic claim that a sentence is excessive does not raise a substantial question for our review." Commonwealth v. Christine , 78 A.3d 1 , 10 (Pa.Super. 2013) ( en banc ), aff'd , 633 Pa. 389 , 125 A.3d 394 (2015) (quoting Commonwealth v. Harvard , 64 A.3d 690 , 701 2015This Court has established that “a generic claim that a sentence is excessive does not raise a substantial question for our review.” Commonwealth v. Christine, 78 A.3d 1, 10 (Pa. Super. 2013) (citing Commonwealth v. Harvard, 64 A.3d 690, 701 (Pa. Super. 2013)). | 10 | 12 |
Commonwealth v. Andrewsgreen2 sentences2025See 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”). 2022Further, “a generic claim that a sentence is excessive does not raise a substantial question for our review.” Commonwealth v. Andrews, 213 A.3d 1004, 1017 (Pa. Super. 2019) -6- J-A21021-22 (citation omitted); Commonwealth v. Booze, 953 A.2d 1263, 1278 (Pa. Super. 2008) (same). | 5 | 5 |
Commonwealth v. Harvardgreen2 sentences2019The only sentencing challenge that Appellant preserved before the trial court was his claim that there were "numerous other sentencing alternatives that could have been appropriately imposed in this case ... [more specifically,] a county sentence." Motion for Reconsideration of Sentence, 4/19/18, at 1. 6 This Court has held that "a generic claim that a sentence is excessive does not raise a substantial question for our review." Commonwealth v. Christine , 78 A.3d 1 , 10 (Pa.Super. 2013) ( en banc ), aff'd , 633 Pa. 389 , 125 A.3d 394 (2015) (quoting Commonwealth v. Harvard , 64 A.3d 690 , 701 2015This Court has established that “a generic claim that a sentence is excessive does not raise a substantial question for our review.” Commonwealth v. Christine, 78 A.3d 1, 10 (Pa. Super. 2013) (citing Commonwealth v. Harvard, 64 A.3d 690, 701 (Pa. Super. 2013)). | 3 | 4 |
Commonwealth v. Caldwellgreen2 sentences2022See, 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.”). 2021See Commonwealth v. Caldwell, 117 A.3d 763, 769 (Pa. Super. 2015) (en banc); Commonwealth v. Fisher, 47 A.3d 155, 159 (Pa. Super. 2012). | 2 | 2 |
Commonwealth v. Fishergreen2 sentences2021See Commonwealth v. Caldwell, 117 A.3d 763, 769 (Pa. Super. 2015) (en banc); Commonwealth v. Fisher, 47 A.3d 155, 159 (Pa. Super. 2012). 2021However, as this Court has repeatedly held, “a generic claim that a sentence is excessive does not raise a substantial question for our review.” Commonwealth v. Andrews, 213 A.3d 1004, 1017 (Pa. Super. 2019) (citation omitted); see also Commonwealth v. Banks, 198 A.3d 391, 401 (Pa. Super. 2018); Commonwealth v. Fisher, 47 A.3d 155, 159 (Pa. Super. 2012). | 2 | 2 |
Commonwealth v. Bishopgreen1 sentence2022Moreover, our independent examination of the record discloses no other non-frivolous sentencing claims Appellant could raise on appeal.5 See, e.g., Commonwealth v. Bishop, 831 A.2d 656, 661 (Pa. Super. 2003) (stating the appellant did not present “a substantial question for our review. | 1 | 1 |
Commonwealth v. Boozegreen1 sentence2022Further, “a generic claim that a sentence is excessive does not raise a substantial question for our review.” Commonwealth v. Andrews, 213 A.3d 1004, 1017 (Pa. Super. 2019) -6- J-A21021-22 (citation omitted); Commonwealth v. Booze, 953 A.2d 1263, 1278 (Pa. Super. 2008) (same). | 1 | 1 |
Commonwealth v. Giordanogreen1 sentence2022See, 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)); Commonwealth v. Giordano, 121 A.3d 998, 1008 (Pa. Super. 2015) (same). | 1 | 1 |
Commonwealth v. Banksgreen1 sentence2021However, as this Court has repeatedly held, “a generic claim that a sentence is excessive does not raise a substantial question for our review.” Commonwealth v. Andrews, 213 A.3d 1004, 1017 (Pa. Super. 2019) (citation omitted); see also Commonwealth v. Banks, 198 A.3d 391, 401 (Pa. Super. 2018); Commonwealth v. Fisher, 47 A.3d 155, 159 (Pa. Super. 2012). | 1 | 1 |
Commonwealth v. Bestgreen1 sentence2018A challenge to the discretionary aspects of a sentence is not absolute, but rather, “must be considered a petition for permission to appeal.” Commonwealth v. Best, 120 A.3d 329, 348 (Pa. Super. 2015) (citation and internal citation omitted). | 1 | 1 |
Commonwealth v. Cruz-Centenogreen1 sentence2016See Cruz-Centeno, supra. Nevertheless, where Appellant claims the court sentenced him in the aggravated range without considering mitigating circumstances, Appellant appears to raise a substantial question as to the discretionary aspects of his sentence. | 1 | 1 |
Commonwealth v. Passgreen1 sentence2016Commonwealth v. Pass, 914 A.2d 442, 446-47 (Pa. Super. 2006). | 1 | 1 |
Commonwealth v. Reevesgreen1 sentence2015See Commonwealth v. Reeves, 907 A.2d 1 (Pa. Super. 2006) (If a Rule 1925(b) statement is too vague, the trial judge may find waiver and disregard any argument.) Even if the claim had been preserved, we would be unable to review it, as the notes of testimony from the SVP hearing were not included in the certified record. | 1 | 1 |
Humphrey v. Department of Correctionsgreen1 sentence2013Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78, 89-90 , 107 S.Ct. 2254 , 96 L.Ed.2d 64 (1987); see also Humphrey v. Department of Corrections, 939 A.2d 987 (Pa.Cmwlth.2007). . | 1 | 1 |
Large v. Superior Courtgreen2 sentences2008See, e.g., Large v. Superior Court, 148 Ariz. 229 , 714 P.2d 399 (1986) (allowing involuntary administration of "dangerous" drugs to treat mentally ill prisoners "in non-emergency situations" under certain circumstances); People v. Hardesty, 139 Mich.App. 124 , 362 N.W.2d 787, 794 (1985), appeal denied (Mich. 1986) (order denying appeal unpublished) (upholding constitutionality of state statute under which prisoner was involuntarily administered antipsychotic drugs). [1] I recognize that a motion seeking to appoint PCRA counsel as next friend was filed on Sam's behalf, and denied by the PCRA c 2008See, e.g., Large v. Superior Court, 148 Ariz. 229 , 714 P.2d 399 (1986) (allowing involuntary administration of "dangerous" drugs to treat mentally ill prisoners "in non-emergency situations" under certain circumstances); People v. Hardesty, 139 Mich.App. 124 , 362 N.W.2d 787, 794 (1985), appeal denied (Mich. 1986) (order denying appeal unpublished) (upholding constitutionality of state statute under which prisoner was involuntarily administered antipsychotic drugs). [1] I recognize that a motion seeking to appoint PCRA counsel as next friend was filed on Sam's behalf, and denied by the PCRA c | 1 | 1 |
People v. Hardestygreen2 sentences2008See, e.g., Large v. Superior Court, 148 Ariz. 229 , 714 P.2d 399 (1986) (allowing involuntary administration of "dangerous" drugs to treat mentally ill prisoners "in non-emergency situations" under certain circumstances); People v. Hardesty, 139 Mich.App. 124 , 362 N.W.2d 787, 794 (1985), appeal denied (Mich. 1986) (order denying appeal unpublished) (upholding constitutionality of state statute under which prisoner was involuntarily administered antipsychotic drugs). [1] I recognize that a motion seeking to appoint PCRA counsel as next friend was filed on Sam's behalf, and denied by the PCRA c 2008See, e.g., Large v. Superior Court, 148 Ariz. 229 , 714 P.2d 399 (1986) (allowing involuntary administration of "dangerous" drugs to treat mentally ill prisoners "in non-emergency situations" under certain circumstances); People v. Hardesty, 139 Mich.App. 124 , 362 N.W.2d 787, 794 (1985), appeal denied (Mich. 1986) (order denying appeal unpublished) (upholding constitutionality of state statute under which prisoner was involuntarily administered antipsychotic drugs). [1] I recognize that a motion seeking to appoint PCRA counsel as next friend was filed on Sam's behalf, and denied by the PCRA c | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Pennsylvania. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Commonwealth v. Christine, J., Aplt.
green
2 sentences2019The only sentencing challenge that Appellant preserved before the trial court was his claim that there were "numerous other sentencing alternatives that could have been appropriately imposed in this case ... [more specifically,] a county sentence." Motion for Reconsideration of Sentence, 4/19/18, at 1. 6 This Court has held that "a generic claim that a sentence is excessive does not raise a substantial question for our review." Commonwealth v. Christine , 78 A.3d 1 , 10 (Pa.Super. 2013) ( en banc ), aff'd , 633 Pa. 389 , 125 A.3d 394 (2015) (quoting Commonwealth v. Harvard , 64 A.3d 690 , 701 2019The only sentencing challenge that Appellant preserved before the trial court was his claim that there were "numerous other sentencing alternatives that could have been appropriately imposed in this case ... [more specifically,] a county sentence." Motion for Reconsideration of Sentence, 4/19/18, at 1. 6 This Court has held that "a generic claim that a sentence is excessive does not raise a substantial question for our review." Commonwealth v. Christine , 78 A.3d 1 , 10 (Pa.Super. 2013) ( en banc ), aff'd , 633 Pa. 389 , 125 A.3d 394 (2015) (quoting Commonwealth v. Harvard , 64 A.3d 690 , 701 | 2 | 2016–2019 |
Commonwealth v. Haynes
green
1 sentence2021Appellant relies on our decision in Commonwealth v. Haynes, 125 A.3d 800 (Pa. Super. 2015), to support his claim that he raised a substantial question. | 1 | 2021–2021 |
Commonwealth v. Trippett
green
1 sentence2017Commonwealth v. Trippett, 932 A.2d 188 (Pa.Super. 2007). | 1 | 2017–2017 |
Commonwealth v. Gamboa-Taylor
green
2 sentences2017See 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9545(b)(1); Commonwealth v. Gamboa–Taylor, 562 Pa. 70 , 753 A.2d 780 (2000). -5- J-S77038-17 In his PCRA petition, Appellant asserts only a generic claim of ineffective assistance of counsel and neither alleges nor proves any of the three cognizable exceptions to the PCRA time-bar. 2017See 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9545(b)(1); Commonwealth v. Gamboa–Taylor, 562 Pa. 70 , 753 A.2d 780 (2000). -5- J-S77038-17 In his PCRA petition, Appellant asserts only a generic claim of ineffective assistance of counsel and neither alleges nor proves any of the three cognizable exceptions to the PCRA time-bar. | 1 | 2017–2017 |
Commonwealth v. Tyack
green
1 sentence2017As noted by the Superior Court in Commonwealth v. Tyack, 128 A.3d 254 (Pa.Super. 2015), the Superior Court has consistently held: If an Appellant wants to preserve a claim that the evidence was insufficient, then the l 925(b) statement needs to specify the element or elements upon which the appellant alleges that the evidence was insufficient. | 1 | 2017–2017 |
Marshall v. Commonwealth
green
1 sentence2016It is now codified in Section 111 of the Internal Revenue Code (IRC). 11 As we stated in Marshall v. Commonwealth, 41 A.3d 67 , 93 (Pa.Cmwlth.2012) : [T]he tax benefit rule is not a generic doctrine prescribed by the courts to remedy every apparent or perceived inequity or unfairness in an income tax system, state or federal. | 1 | 2016–2016 |
Turner v. Safley
green
2 sentences2013Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78, 89-90 , 107 S.Ct. 2254 , 96 L.Ed.2d 64 (1987); see also Humphrey v. Department of Corrections, 939 A.2d 987 (Pa.Cmwlth.2007). . 2013Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78, 89-90 , 107 S.Ct. 2254 , 96 L.Ed.2d 64 (1987); see also Humphrey v. Department of Corrections, 939 A.2d 987 (Pa.Cmwlth.2007). . | 1 | 2013–2013 |
Commonwealth v. Gause
green
2 sentences2002Id., 659 A.2d at 1018 . ¶ 5 While the cmcumstances that might represent a typical or generic violation of the statute in question might be open to some debate, it must be admitted that the facts of the present case fall on the less egregious end of the conduct spectrum that is encompassed within its definitions. 2002Id., 659 A.2d at 1018 . ¶ 5 While the cmcumstances that might represent a typical or generic violation of the statute in question might be open to some debate, it must be admitted that the facts of the present case fall on the less egregious end of the conduct spectrum that is encompassed within its definitions. | 1 | 2002–2002 |
John Kenneth Henderson v. Frederick Frank, Superintendent Thomas W. Corbett, Jr., Attorney General John K. Henderson
green
1 sentence2000The court held, “A generic waiver form such as Henderson’s cannot replace the verbal colloquy between judge and defendant, set forth for the record, to satisfy the judge’s obligation to ensure a waiver is made voluntarily, knowingly and intelligently.” Id. at 167 . | 1 | 2000–2000 |
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.