Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
24 Pennsylvania opinions name it 1 courts 1999–2026 9 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. Archergreen2 sentences2026See Commonwealth v. Archer, 722 A.2d 203, 210-11 (Pa. Super. 1998) (en banc) (holding that “any misapplication of the Sentencing Guidelines constitutes a challenge to the discretionary aspects of sentence” and challenge to OGS calculation is claim sounding in misapplication of Sentencing Guidelines); see also Commonwealth v. Wrecks, 934 A.2d 1287, 1289 (Pa. Super. 2007) (stating that “[r]equests for relief with respect to the discretionary aspects of sentence are not cognizable in PCRA proceedings”). 2026See Commonwealth v. Archer, 722 A.2d 203, 210-11 (Pa. Super. 1998) (en banc) (holding that “any misapplication of the Sentencing Guidelines constitutes a challenge to the discretionary aspects of sentence” and challenge to OGS calculation is claim sounding in misapplication of Sentencing Guidelines); see also Commonwealth v. Wrecks, 934 A.2d 1287, 1289 (Pa. Super. 2007) (stating that “[r]equests for relief with respect to the discretionary aspects of sentence are not cognizable in PCRA proceedings”). | 12 | 18 |
Commonwealth v. Cruz-Centenogreen2 sentences2023See Commonwealth v. Lee, 876 A.2d 408, 411 (Pa. Super. 2005) (claim that sentence is manifestly excessive goes to discretionary aspects of sentencing); Commonwealth v. Archer, 722 A.2d 203, 209 (Pa. Super. 1998) (en banc) (“[M]isapplication of the Sentencing Guidelines constitutes a challenge to the discretionary aspects of sentence.”); Commonwealth v. Cruz-Centano, 668 A.2d 536, 545 (Pa. Super. 1995), appeal denied, 676 A.2d 1195 (Pa. 1996) (claim that sentencing court failed to consider certain mitigating factors implicates the discretionary aspects of sentence). 2022Rather, the appellant must establish, by reference to the record, that the sentencing court ignored or misapplied the law, exercised its judgment for reasons of partiality, prejudice, bias or ill will, or arrived at a manifestly unreasonable decision.” Commonwealth v. Antidormi, 84 A.3d 736, 760 (Pa. Super. 2014), appeal denied, 95 A.3d 275 (Pa. 2014) (citation omitted). -5- J-S30037-22 J-S30038-22 1998) (en banc) (“[M]isapplication of the Sentencing Guidelines constitutes a challenge to the discretionary aspects of sentence.”); Commonwealth v. Cruz-Centano, 668 A.2d 536, 545 (Pa. Super. 1995) | 3 | 3 |
Commonwealth v. Sunealitisgreen2 sentences2023First, we note that “any misapplication of the Sentencing Guidelines constitutes a challenge to the discretionary aspects of [a] sentence.” Commonwealth v. Sunealitis, 153 A.3d 414, 421 (Pa. Super. 2016) (citation omitted). 2022While a question related to the misapplication of the sentencing guidelines constitutes a challenge to the discretionary aspects of sentencing, “[t]he calculation of the offense gravity score is a matter of statutory - 16 - J-S01032-22 interpretation, which raises a question of law.” Sunealitis, 153 A.3d at 421 . | 2 | 3 |
Commonwealth v. Wrecksgreen2 sentences2026See Commonwealth v. Archer, 722 A.2d 203, 210-11 (Pa. Super. 1998) (en banc) (holding that “any misapplication of the Sentencing Guidelines constitutes a challenge to the discretionary aspects of sentence” and challenge to OGS calculation is claim sounding in misapplication of Sentencing Guidelines); see also Commonwealth v. Wrecks, 934 A.2d 1287, 1289 (Pa. Super. 2007) (stating that “[r]equests for relief with respect to the discretionary aspects of sentence are not cognizable in PCRA proceedings”). 2026See Commonwealth v. Archer, 722 A.2d 203, 210-11 (Pa. Super. 1998) (en banc) (holding that “any misapplication of the Sentencing Guidelines constitutes a challenge to the discretionary aspects of sentence” and challenge to OGS calculation is claim sounding in misapplication of Sentencing Guidelines); see also Commonwealth v. Wrecks, 934 A.2d 1287, 1289 (Pa. Super. 2007) (stating that “[r]equests for relief with respect to the discretionary aspects of sentence are not cognizable in PCRA proceedings”). | 2 | 2 |
Commonwealth v. Leegreen2 sentences2023See Commonwealth v. Lee, 876 A.2d 408, 411 (Pa. Super. 2005) (claim that sentence is manifestly excessive goes to discretionary aspects of sentencing); Commonwealth v. Archer, 722 A.2d 203, 209 (Pa. Super. 1998) (en banc) (“[M]isapplication of the Sentencing Guidelines constitutes a challenge to the discretionary aspects of sentence.”); Commonwealth v. Cruz-Centano, 668 A.2d 536, 545 (Pa. Super. 1995), appeal denied, 676 A.2d 1195 (Pa. 1996) (claim that sentencing court failed to consider certain mitigating factors implicates the discretionary aspects of sentence). 2020(See Commonwealth’s Brief, at 7, 9); (PCRA Petition, at Paragraph 21); see also Commonwealth v. Prisk, 13 A.3d 526, 532 (Pa. Super. 2011) (“[A]llegation of excessiveness due to imposition of consecutive sentences implicates discretionary aspects of sentencing.”) (citation omitted); Commonwealth v. Robinson, 931 A.2d 15, 21 (Pa. Super. 2007) (claim of vindictiveness implicates discretionary aspects of sentence); Commonwealth v. Lee, 876 A.2d 408, 411 (Pa. Super. 2005) (claim that sentence is manifestly excessive goes to discretionary aspects of sentencing); Commonwealth v. Archer, 722 A.2d 203, | 2 | 2 |
Commonwealth v. Derrygreen2 sentences2023It is well-settled that “[c]hallenges to the discretionary aspects of sentencing do not entitle an appellant to review as of right.” Commonwealth v. Derry, 150 A.3d 987, 991 (Pa. Super. 2016) (citation omitted). 2022See Commonwealth v. Shreffler, 249 A.3d 575, 583 (Pa. Super. 2021) (stating that it is “well-settled that a challenge to the calculation of a - 22 - J-S08022-22 prior record score goes to the discretionary aspects, not legality, of sentencing” (citation omitted)); see also Commonwealth v. Archer, 722 A.2d 203, 211 (Pa. Super. 1998) (en banc) (stating that “any misapplication of the Sentencing Guidelines constitutes a challenge to the discretionary aspects of sentence”). “[C]hallenges to the discretionary aspects of sentencing do not entitle an appellant to review as of right.” Commonwealth v. | 2 | 2 |
Commonwealth v. Sanchezgreen2 sentences2022We have explained, “[a]ny misapplication of the Sentencing Guidelines constitutes a challenge to the discretionary aspects of sentence.” Commonwealth v. Sanchez, 848 A.2d 977, 986 (Pa. Super. 2004) (citation omitted). 2018These types of arguments do not implicate the legality of the sentence and therefore must be properly preserved. 5 See *1158 Commonwealth v. Sanchez , 848 A.2d 977 , 986 (Pa.Super. 2004) ("[A]ny misapplication of the Sentencing Guidelines constitutes a challenge to the discretionary aspects of sentence.") (citation omitted). | 2 | 2 |
Commonwealth v. Buterbaughgreen2 sentences2022“The right to appellate review of the discretionary aspects of a sentence is not absolute, and must be considered a petition for permission to appeal.” Commonwealth v. Buterbaugh, 91 A.3d 1247, 1265 (Pa. Super. 2014), appeal denied, 104 A.3d 1 (Pa. 2014). 2016See also Commonwealth v. Buterbaugh, 91 A.3d 1247, 1266 (Pa. Super. 2014) (en banc) (imposition of the deadly weapon enhancement is a challenge to the discretion of the trial court, not to the legality of the sentence); Commonwealth v. Archer, 722 A.2d 203, 211 (Pa. Super. 1998) (“[A]ny misapplication of the Sentencing Guidelines constitutes a challenge to the discretionary aspects of sentence.”). - 18 - J-S02012-16 As Appellant recognizes, such a challenge is not subject to our review as a matter of right. | 2 | 2 |
Commonwealth v. Johnsongreen2 sentences2003A claim that the sentencing court misapplied the Guidelines presents a substantial question.” Archer, 722 A.2d at 211 , overruling Commonwealth v. Johnson, 421 Pa.Super. 433 , 618 A.2d 415, 418-419 (1992) and Commonwealth v. Palmer, 700 A.2d 988, 995 (Pa.Super.1997). 2003A claim that the sentencing court misapplied the Guidelines presents a substantial question.” Archer, 722 A.2d at 211 , overruling Commonwealth v. Johnson, 421 Pa.Super. 433 , 618 A.2d 415, 418-419 (1992) and Commonwealth v. Palmer, 700 A.2d 988, 995 (Pa.Super.1997). | 2 | 2 |
Commonwealth v. Palmergreen2 sentences2003A claim that the sentencing court misapplied the Guidelines presents a substantial question.” Archer, 722 A.2d at 211 , overruling Commonwealth v. Johnson, 421 Pa.Super. 433 , 618 A.2d 415, 418-419 (1992) and Commonwealth v. Palmer, 700 A.2d 988, 995 (Pa.Super.1997). 1999A claim that the sentencing court misapplied the Guidelines presents a substantial question.” Archer, 722 A.2d at 211 , overruling Commonwealth v. Johnson, 421 Pa.Super. 433 , 618 A.2d 415, 418-419 (1992) and Com monwealth v. Palmer, 700 A.2d 988, 995 (Pa.Super.1997). | 1 | 2 |
Com. v. Shreffler, S.green1 sentence2022See Commonwealth v. Shreffler, 249 A.3d 575, 583 (Pa. Super. 2021) (stating that it is “well-settled that a challenge to the calculation of a - 22 - J-S08022-22 prior record score goes to the discretionary aspects, not legality, of sentencing” (citation omitted)); see also Commonwealth v. Archer, 722 A.2d 203, 211 (Pa. Super. 1998) (en banc) (stating that “any misapplication of the Sentencing Guidelines constitutes a challenge to the discretionary aspects of sentence”). “[C]hallenges to the discretionary aspects of sentencing do not entitle an appellant to review as of right.” Commonwealth v. | 1 | 1 |
Commonwealth v. Antidormigreen1 sentence2022Rather, the appellant must establish, by reference to the record, that the sentencing court ignored or misapplied the law, exercised its judgment for reasons of partiality, prejudice, bias or ill will, or arrived at a manifestly unreasonable decision.” Commonwealth v. Antidormi, 84 A.3d 736, 760 (Pa. Super. 2014), appeal denied, 95 A.3d 275 (Pa. 2014) (citation omitted). -5- J-S30037-22 J-S30038-22 1998) (en banc) (“[M]isapplication of the Sentencing Guidelines constitutes a challenge to the discretionary aspects of sentence.”); Commonwealth v. Cruz-Centano, 668 A.2d 536, 545 (Pa. Super. 1995) | 1 | 1 |
Commonwealth v. Priskgreen1 sentence2020(See Commonwealth’s Brief, at 7, 9); (PCRA Petition, at Paragraph 21); see also Commonwealth v. Prisk, 13 A.3d 526, 532 (Pa. Super. 2011) (“[A]llegation of excessiveness due to imposition of consecutive sentences implicates discretionary aspects of sentencing.”) (citation omitted); Commonwealth v. Robinson, 931 A.2d 15, 21 (Pa. Super. 2007) (claim of vindictiveness implicates discretionary aspects of sentence); Commonwealth v. Lee, 876 A.2d 408, 411 (Pa. Super. 2005) (claim that sentence is manifestly excessive goes to discretionary aspects of sentencing); Commonwealth v. Archer, 722 A.2d 203, | 1 | 1 |
Commonwealth v. Fowlergreen1 sentence2020It is well-settled that “[c]hallenges to the discretionary aspects of sentencing are not cognizable under the PCRA.” Commonwealth v. Fowler, 930 A.2d 586, 593 (Pa. Super.2007), appeal denied, 944 A.2d 756 (Pa. 2008); see also Commonwealth v. Wrecks, 934 A.2d 1287, 1288 (Pa. Super. 2007) (“Requests for relief with respect to the discretionary aspects of -5- J-S56038-20 sentence are not cognizable in PCRA proceedings.”) (citation omitted). | 1 | 1 |
Commonwealth v. Robinsongreen1 sentence2020(See Commonwealth’s Brief, at 7, 9); (PCRA Petition, at Paragraph 21); see also Commonwealth v. Prisk, 13 A.3d 526, 532 (Pa. Super. 2011) (“[A]llegation of excessiveness due to imposition of consecutive sentences implicates discretionary aspects of sentencing.”) (citation omitted); Commonwealth v. Robinson, 931 A.2d 15, 21 (Pa. Super. 2007) (claim of vindictiveness implicates discretionary aspects of sentence); Commonwealth v. Lee, 876 A.2d 408, 411 (Pa. Super. 2005) (claim that sentence is manifestly excessive goes to discretionary aspects of sentencing); Commonwealth v. Archer, 722 A.2d 203, | 1 | 1 |
Commonwealth v. Samuelgreen1 sentence2017Commonwealth v. Samuel, 102 A.3d 1001, 1006-07 (Pa. Super. 2014) (some citations omitted). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Pennsylvania. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Com. v. Gunn
green
1 sentence2020It is well-settled that “[c]hallenges to the discretionary aspects of sentencing are not cognizable under the PCRA.” Commonwealth v. Fowler, 930 A.2d 586, 593 (Pa. Super.2007), appeal denied, 944 A.2d 756 (Pa. 2008); see also Commonwealth v. Wrecks, 934 A.2d 1287, 1288 (Pa. Super. 2007) (“Requests for relief with respect to the discretionary aspects of -5- J-S56038-20 sentence are not cognizable in PCRA proceedings.”) (citation omitted). | 1 | 2020–2020 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.