concomitantly deferential standard in Pennsylvania

2022“The rationale behind such broad discretion and the concomitantly deferential standard of appellate review is that the sentencing court is in the best position to determine the proper penalty for a particular offense based upon an evaluation of the individual circumstances before it.” Moury, 992 A.2d at 170 (citation omitted) The Sentencing Code requires the court to consider certain factors, including a defendant’s rehabilitative needs, when determining a sentence. 42 Pa.C.S. § 9721(b).5 It must also “make as a part of the record, and disclose in open court at the time of sentencing, a statem

2022“The rationale behind such broad discretion and the concomitantly deferential standard of appellate review is that the sentencing court is in the best position to determine the proper penalty for a particular offense based upon an evaluation of the individual circumstances before it.” Moury, 992 A.2d at 170 (citation omitted).

2026“The rationale behind such broad discretion and the concomitantly deferential standard of appellate review is that the sentencing court is in the best position to determine the proper penalty for a particular offense based upon an evaluation of the individual circumstances before it.” Commonwealth v. Walls, 926 A.2d 957, 961 (Pa. 2007) (citations omitted).

2026“The rationale behind such broad discretion and the concomitantly deferential standard of appellate review is that the sentencing court is in the best position to determine the proper penalty for a particular offense based upon an evaluation of the individual circumstances before it.” Commonwealth v. Walls, 926 A.2d 957 , ____________________________________________ 10 Counsel failed to include in his Anders brief a Pa.R.A.P. 2119(f) statement of reasons relied upon for allowance of appeal.

2025The rationale behind such broad behind such discretion and broad discretion and the concomitantly deferential the concomitantly deferential standard standard of of appellate appellate review that review is that the the sentencing sentencing court court is “in the is "in best position the best to determine position to determine the the proper penalty for proper penalty for aa particular particular offense offense based based upon an evaluation upon an evaluation of of the the individual circumstance before individual circumstance before it.” Commonwealth v. it." Commonwealth Ward, 568 • Ward, 5

2022Further, as our Supreme Court elaborated in Commonwealth v. Walls, 926 A.2d 957 (Pa. 2007): The rationale behind such broad discretion and the concomitantly deferential standard of appellate review is that the sentencing court is “in the best position to determine the proper -7- J-S22021-22 penalty for a particular offense based upon an evaluation of the individual circumstances before it.” Commonwealth v. Ward, . . . 568 A.2d 1242, 1243 ([Pa.] 1990); see also Commonwealth v. Jones, . . . 613 A.2d 587, 591 ([Pa. Super.] 1992) (en banc) (offering that the sentencing court is in a superior posit

2022Further, as our Supreme Court elaborated in Commonwealth v. Walls, 926 A.2d 957 (Pa. 2007): The rationale behind such broad discretion and the concomitantly deferential standard of appellate review is that the sentencing court is “in the best position to determine the proper -7- J-S22021-22 penalty for a particular offense based upon an evaluation of the individual circumstances before it.” Commonwealth v. Ward, . . . 568 A.2d 1242, 1243 ([Pa.] 1990); see also Commonwealth v. Jones, . . . 613 A.2d 587, 591 ([Pa. Super.] 1992) (en banc) (offering that the sentencing court is in a superior posit

2021Further, as our Supreme Court elaborated in Commonwealth v. Walls, 926 A.2d 957 (Pa. 2007): The rationale behind such broad discretion and the concomitantly deferential standard of appellate review is that the sentencing court is “in the best position to determine the proper penalty for a particular offense based upon an evaluation of the individual circumstances before it.” Commonwealth v. Ward, . . . 568 A.2d 1242, 1243 ([Pa.] 1990); see also Commonwealth v. Jones, . . . 613 A.2d 587, 591 ([Pa. Super.] 1992) (en banc) (offering that the sentencing court is in a superior position to “view the

2022Commonwealth v. Allen, 24 A.3d 1058, 1064 (Pa. Super. 2011) (citation and ellipses omitted).

2016“The rationale behind such broad discretion and the concomitantly deferential standard of appellate review is that the sentencing court is in the best position to determine the proper penalty for a particular offense based upon an evaluation of the individual circumstances before it.” Id.

2019To determine whether the trial court made the proper considerations during sentencing, “an appellate court must, of necessity, review all of the judge's comments.” Commonwealth v. Bethea, 379 A.2d 102, 106 (Pa. 1977); see also Commonwealth v. Ritchey, 779 A.2d 1183, 1187 (Pa. Super. 2001) (“As this Court has stated, the judge's statement must clearly show that he has given individualized consideration to the character of the defendant.”) (quotation marks and citation omitted).

2017To determine whether the trial court made the proper considerations during sentencing, “an appellate court must, of necessity, review all of the judge’s comments.” Commonwealth v. Bethea, 474 Pa. 571 , 379 A.2d 102, 106 (1977); see also Commonwealth v. Ritchey, 779 A.2d 1183, 1187 (Pa. Super. 2001) (“As this Court has stated, the judge’s statement must clearly show that he has given individualized consideration to the character of the defendant” (quotation marks and citation omitted)).

2019To determine whether the trial court made the proper considerations during sentencing, “an appellate court must, of necessity, review all of the judge's comments.” Commonwealth v. Bethea, 379 A.2d 102, 106 (Pa. 1977); see also Commonwealth v. Ritchey, 779 A.2d 1183, 1187 (Pa. Super. 2001) (“As this Court has stated, the judge's statement must clearly show that he has given individualized consideration to the character of the defendant.”) (quotation marks and citation omitted).

2017To determine whether the trial court made the proper considerations during sentencing, “an appellate court must, of necessity, review all of the judge’s comments.” Commonwealth v. Bethea, 474 Pa. 571 , 379 A.2d 102, 106 (1977); see also Commonwealth v. Ritchey, 779 A.2d 1183, 1187 (Pa. Super. 2001) (“As this Court has stated, the judge’s statement must clearly show that he has given individualized consideration to the character of the defendant” (quotation marks and citation omitted)).

2019“The rationale behind such broad discretion and the concomitantly deferential standard of appellate review is that the sentencing court is in the best position to determine the proper penalty for a particular offense based upon an evaluation of the individual circumstances before it.” Id., at 740 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).

2017“The rationale behind such broad discretion and the concomitantly deferential standard of appellate review is that the sentencing court is in the best position to determine the proper penalty for a particular offense based upon an evaluation of the individual circumstances before it.” Id. at 740 (quotation marks and citation omitted).

2026Nevertheless, “[w]here counsel files an Anders brief, this Court has reviewed [discretionary sentencing claims] even absent a separate [Rule] 2119(f) statement.” Commonwealth v. Zeigler, 112 A.3d 656, 661 (Pa. Super. 2015) (citation omitted). -9- J-A06028-26 961 (Pa. 2007) (citation and quotation marks omitted); see also Commonwealth v. Hill, 66 A.3d 365, 370 (Pa. Super. 2013) (stating a sentencing court “has broad discretion in choosing the range of permissible confinements that best suits a particular defendant and the circumstances surrounding his crime.” (citation omitted)).

2025“The rationale behind such broad discretion and the concomitantly deferential standard of appellate review is that the sentencing court is in the best position to determine the proper penalty for a particular offense based upon an evaluation of the individual circumstances before it.” Commonwealth v. Walls, 926 A.2d 957, 961 (Pa. 2007) (citation and quotation marks omitted); see also Commonwealth v. Hill, 66 A.3d 365, 370 (Pa. Super. 2013) (stating a sentencing court “has broad discretion in choosing the range of permissible - 14 - J-S05018-25 confinements that best suits a particular defendan

2017Furthermore, "the general rule in Pennsylvania is that in imposing a sentence, the court has the discretion to determine whether to make it concurrent with or consecutive with other sentences then being imposed." Commonwealth v. Graham, 541 Pa. 173, 184 , 661 A.2d 1367, 1373 (Pa. 1995). 42 Pa.CS.A. § 9721(b), which governs the standard to be applied at sentencing, provides that "the court shall follow the general principle that the sentence imposed should call for confinement that is consistent with the protection of the public, the gravity of the offense as it relates to the impact on the lif

2017Furthermore, "the general rule in Pennsylvania is that in imposing a sentence, the court has the discretion to determine whether to make it concurrent with or consecutive with other sentences then being imposed." Commonwealth v. Graham, 541 Pa. 173, 184 , 661 A.2d 1367, 1373 (Pa. 1995). 42 Pa.CS.A. § 9721(b), which governs the standard to be applied at sentencing, provides that "the court shall follow the general principle that the sentence imposed should call for confinement that is consistent with the protection of the public, the gravity of the offense as it relates to the impact on the lif

2023Commonwealth v. Patterson, 180 A.3d 1217 , 1231-32 (Pa. Super. 2018). - 11 - J-S22020-23 The trial court reasoned: This Court reviewed the presentence report and the sentencing guidelines prior to imposing sentence.

2023Id. at 1231-32 (quoting Commonwealth v. Moury, 992 A.2d 162 , 169–170 (Pa. Super. 2010) (citation omitted)).

2026See Commonwealth v. Macias, 968 A.2d 773, 778 (Pa. Super. 2009); see also Laughman, 314 A.3d at 572 (internal citation omitted) (“The rationale behind such broad discretion and the concomitantly deferential standard of appellate review is that the sentencing court is in the best position to determine the proper penalty for a particular offense based upon an evaluation of the individual circumstances before it.”).

2026See Commonwealth v. Macias, 968 A.2d 773, 778 (Pa. Super. 2009); see also Laughman, 314 A.3d at 572 (internal citation omitted) (“The rationale behind such broad discretion and the concomitantly deferential standard of appellate review is that the sentencing court is in the best position to determine the proper penalty for a particular offense based upon an evaluation of the individual circumstances before it.”).

2026Nevertheless, “[w]here counsel files an Anders brief, this Court has reviewed [discretionary sentencing claims] even absent a separate [Rule] 2119(f) statement.” Commonwealth v. Zeigler, 112 A.3d 656, 661 (Pa. Super. 2015) (citation omitted). -9- J-A06028-26 961 (Pa. 2007) (citation and quotation marks omitted); see also Commonwealth v. Hill, 66 A.3d 365, 370 (Pa. Super. 2013) (stating a sentencing court “has broad discretion in choosing the range of permissible confinements that best suits a particular defendant and the circumstances surrounding his crime.” (citation omitted)).

2021The rationale behind such broad discretion and the concomitantly deferential standard of appellate review is that the sentencing court is in the best position to determine the proper penalty for a particular offense based upon an evaluation of the individual circumstances before it." Furthermore, our Superior Court, in Commonwealth v. Mastromarino, 2 A.3d 581, 586-5875 (Pa.Super.2010) reiterated that; “Long standing precedent of this Court recognizes that 42 Pa.C.S.A. §9721, affords the sentencing court’s discretion to impose its sentence concurrently or consecutively to other sentences being

2020At the outset, we note that “there is no absolute right to appeal when challenging the discretionary aspect of a sentence.” Commonwealth v. Crump, 995 A.2d 1280, 1282 (Pa.Super. 2010).

2019See, Commonwealth v. Buterbaugh, 91 A.3d 1247 (Pa. Super. 2014). , Our Supreme Court has stated that the rationale behind such broad discretion and the concomitantly deferential standard of appellate review· is that the sentencing court is "in the best position 10 to determine the proper penalty for a particular offense based upon an evaluation of the individual circumstances before it".

2018See Commonwealth v. Hanna, 124 A.3d 757 (Pa. Super. 2015) (a plain reading of the statute excludes offenders who are convicted of an offense involving a deadly weapon). 8 The rationale behind such broad discretion and the concomitantly deferential standard of appellate review is that the sentencing court is in the best position to determine the proper penalty for a particular offense based upon an evaluation of the individual circumstances before it.

2018“The rationale behind such broad discretion[,] and the concomitantly deferential standard of appellate review[,] is that the sentencing court is in the best position to determine the proper penalty for a particular offense based upon an evaluation of the individual circumstances before it.” Commonwealth v. Perry, 32 A.3d 232, 236 (Pa. 2011) (citation and quotation marks omitted).

2018Commonwealth v. Eby, 784 A.2d 204, 206 (Pa. Super. 2001 ).