discretionary aspect of sentencing claim in Pennsylvania

2025See Commonwealth v. Moury, 992 A.2d 162, 170 (Pa. Super. 2010) (“[c]hallenges to the discretionary aspects of sentencing do not entitle an appellant to review as of right.”).

2025Moury, 992 A.2d at 170 (citations and brackets omitted).

2025Commonwealth v. White, 193 A.3d 977, 982 (Pa. Super. 2018).

2023See Commonwealth v. White, 193 A.3d 977, 982 (Pa. Super. 2018).

2023See Caldwell, 117 A.3d at 768 .

2021See Caldwell, 117 A.3d at 768 .

2018Commonwealth v. Evans, 901 A.2d 528, 533 (Pa.Super. 2006), appeal denied, 589 Pa. 727 , 909 A.2d 303 (2006).

2018Commonwealth v. Evans, 901 A.2d 528, 533 (Pa.Super. 2006), appeal denied, 589 Pa. 727 , 909 A.2d 303 (2006).

2026However, the Commonwealth again contends that he has waived his issue for our review, arguing that Appellant’s Rule 2119(f) statement “contains such woefully boilerplate language that it does not address his actual claim.” Commonwealth’s Brief at 8 (citing Commonwealth v. Gibbs, 981 A.2d 274, 283 (Pa. Super. 2009) (holding, inter alia, that boilerplate language in a Rule 2119(f) statement bars the Court from determining the basis for a discretionary aspect of sentencing claim)).

2025See Commonwealth v. Hyland, 875 A.2d 1175, 1184 (Pa.Super. 2005) (setting forth the standard of review for reviewing the merits of a discretionary aspect of sentencing claim). - 15 -

2025See Zeigler, 112 A.3d at 661 (citations omitted and some formatting altered). -9- J-S33038-24 Here, the record reflects that Appellant preserved his first claim regarding the applicable OGS by raising it at sentencing and preserved his second claim that the sentencing court relied on an improper factor of profit or financial gain to formulate his sentence by raising it in a post-sentence motion.

2024See Starr, 234 A.3d at 759 ; see also Commonwealth v. Kitchen, 814 A.2d 209, 214 (Pa. Super. 2002) (concluding that the failure to include a discretionary aspect of sentencing claim in a Rule 1925(b) resulted in waiver).

2024See Starr, 234 A.3d at 759 ; see also Commonwealth v. Kitchen, 814 A.2d 209, 214 (Pa. Super. 2002) (concluding that the failure to include a discretionary aspect of sentencing claim in a Rule 1925(b) resulted in waiver).

2024See Commonwealth v. Troell, 290 A.3d 296, 299 (Pa. Super. 2023) (noting a claim that the trial court miscalculated the OGS is a challenge to the discretionary aspects of sentencing).

2023Cf. Foster v. Chatman, ––– U.S. –––, 136 S.Ct. 1737 , 1747–1755, 195 L.Ed.2d 1 (2016) (even under Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996’s (“AEDPA’s”) double deferential standard of review, the trial court’s factual finding with respect to discriminatory intent was clearly erroneous); Commonwealth v. Monahan, 860 A.2d 180, 185 (Pa. Super. 2004), appeal denied, 583 Pa. 688 , 878 A.2d 863 (Pa. 2005) (In the context of a discretionary aspect of sentencing claim, in which we employ a highly deferential standard of review, we do not act as a rubber stamp.).

2021See Devers, supra. Consequently, Ramos-Gonzalez has not shown that his sentence is unreasonable; thus, this discretionary aspect of sentencing claim fails.

2020Accord Commonwealth v. Tuladziecki, 522 A.2d 17 (Pa. 1987) (holding that claim relating to discretionary aspects of sentence is waived if appellant does not include Pa.R.A.P. 2119(f) statement in brief and opposing party objects to statement’s absence).

2019See Commonwealth v. Derry, 150 A.3d 987 (Pa. Super. 2016) (noting that a claim that the sentencing court failed to or did not adequately consider rehabilitative needs challenges the discretionary aspects of a sentence); 1 Gagnon v. Scarpelli, 411 U.S. 778 (1973). -2- J-S77041-18 Commonwealth v. Flowers, 950 A.2d 330, 331 (Pa. Super. 2008) (pointing out that “a claim that the court erred in failing to order a PSI report raises a discretionary aspect of sentencing claim”).

2019See Commonwealth v. Garzone, 993 A.2d 306, 316 (Pa. Super. 2010) (recognizing that an argument that the trial court did not have the authority to impose certain costs presents a legality of sentence claim whereas a claim that the amount is excessive presents a discretionary aspect of sentencing claim) (citations omitted).

2019See Commonwealth v. Derry, 150 A.3d 987 (Pa. Super. 2016) (noting that a claim that the sentencing court failed to or did not adequately consider rehabilitative needs challenges the discretionary aspects of a sentence); 1 Gagnon v. Scarpelli, 411 U.S. 778 (1973). -2- J-S77041-18 Commonwealth v. Flowers, 950 A.2d 330, 331 (Pa. Super. 2008) (pointing out that “a claim that the court erred in failing to order a PSI report raises a discretionary aspect of sentencing claim”).

2018See Commonwealth v. McLaine, 150 A.3d 70, 76 (Pa. Super. 2016).

2016See Commonwealth v. Billett, 535 A.2d 1182 , 1183 n.2 (Pa. Super. 1988) (stating that “[t]he question whether juvenile adjudications may properly be included in computing prior record scores implicates a discretionary aspect of sentencing and not sentencing legality.”); see also Commonwealth v. Hale, 2015 WL 9284110, *2 (Pa. 2015). -8- J-S01012-16 Moury, 992 A.2d at 170 (citations and quotation marks omitted).

2016See Commonwealth v. Billett, 535 A.2d 1182 , 1183 n.2 (Pa. Super. 1988) (stating that “[t]he question whether juvenile adjudications may properly be included in computing prior record scores implicates a discretionary aspect of sentencing and not sentencing legality.”); see also Commonwealth v. Hale, 2015 WL 9284110, *2 (Pa. 2015). -8- J-S01012-16 Moury, 992 A.2d at 170 (citations and quotation marks omitted).

2016Commonwealth v. Shugars, 895 A.2d 1270, 1274 (Pa. Super. 2006).

2015See Commonwealth v. Hudson, 820 A.2d 720, 727 (Pa. Super. 2003) (stating “we may not reach the merits of [the] claims where the Commonwealth has object[ed] to the omission of the statement”) (citation omitted).

2015Commonwealth v. Dodge, 77 A.3d 1263, 1274 (Pa.Super. 2013).

2014See Pa.R.Crim.P. 720; Pa.R.A.P. 302(a) (“[i]ssues not raised in the lower court are waived and cannot be raised for the first time on appeal”); Commonwealth v. Cartrette, 83 A.3d 1030, 1042 (Pa. Super. 2013) (“issues challenging the discretionary aspects of a sentence must be raised in a post-sentence motion or by presenting the claim to the trial court during the sentencing proceedings.

2006See In the Interest of M.W., 555 Pa. 505 , 725 A.2d 729 (1999); Commonwealth v. Langston, 904 A.2d 917 (Pa.Super.2006) (holding an appellant’s claim that the sentence required her to pay restitution to a person who was not a “victim” was a legality of sentencing claim); Jacobs, supra (indicating a challenge to the authority of the court to give a particular sentence is a legality of sentencing claim); Commonwealth v. Walker, 446 Pa.Super. 43 , 666 A.2d 301 (1995) (holding that challenge to the appropriateness of restitution is a legality of sentencing claim whereas challenge based on excessive