sentence imposed hearing in Pennsylvania

2021See Commonwealth v. Mann, 820 A.2d 788, 794 (Pa. Super. 2003) (holding that objections to the discretionary aspects of sentence are generally waived if they are not raised at the sentencing hearing or in a motion to modify the sentence imposed at that hearing).

2021See Commonwealth v. Mann, 820 A.2d 788, 794 (Pa. Super. 2003) (holding -9- J-S14040-21 that objections to the discretionary aspects of sentence are generally waived if they are not raised at the sentencing hearing or in a motion to modify the sentence imposed at that hearing).5, 6 Additionally, to the extent that Turner raises an issue related to the legality of his sentence, the trial court addressed this issue as follows: In the first instance, we note “…a challenge to the legality of a sentence is never waived.” Commonwealth v. Shugars, 895 A.2d 1270, 1279 (Pa. Super. 2006) (citations omitt

2021See Commonwealth v. Evans, 901 A.2d 528, 533-34 (Pa. Super. 2006) (“Objections to the discretionary aspects of a sentence are generally waived if they are not raised at the sentencing hearing or raised in a motion to modify the sentence imposed at that hearing.”) (citation omitted). -2- J-S16014-21 2021, the court ordered Appellant to file a Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) concise statement of errors complained of on appeal, and he timely complied, preserving the following issues for our review: 1. … [T]he [t]rial [c]ourt erred and/or abused its discretion by inappropriately calculating the [OGS] in the abo

2021See Commonwealth v. Evans, 901 A.2d 528, 533-34 (Pa. Super. 2006) (“Objections to the discretionary aspects of a sentence are generally waived if they are not raised at the sentencing hearing or raised in a motion to modify the sentence imposed at that hearing.”) (citation omitted). -2- J-S16014-21 and the court appointed Attorney Gumble to represent him.

2023“Objections to the discretionary aspects of a sentence are generally waived if they are not raised at the sentencing hearing or raised in a motion to modify the sentence imposed at that hearing.” Commonwealth v. Hyland, 875 A.2d 1175, 1183 (Pa.Super. 2005).

2016S67007/16 the sentence imposed at that hearing.” Commonwealth v. Hyland, 875 A.2d 1175, 1183 (Pa.Super. 2005), appeal denied, 890 A.2d 1057 (Pa. 2005), citing Commonwealth v. Mann, 820 A.2d 788, 794 (Pa.Super. 2003), appeal denied, 831 A.2d 599 (Pa. 2003).

2018Anderson, 830 A.2d at 1016 (noting “that objections to the discretionary aspects of a sentence are waived if they are not raised at the sentencing hearing or raised in a motion to modify the sentence imposed at that hearing”) (citations omitted).

2018As a prefatory matter, “we note that objections to the discretionary aspects of a sentence are waived if they are not raised at the sentencing -8- J-S43038-18 hearing or raised in a motion to modify the sentence imposed at that hearing.” Commonwealth v. Anderson, 830 A.2d 1013, 1016 (Pa. Super. 2003) (citations omitted).

2017Commonwealth v. Wolfe, 106 A.3d 800, 801 (Pa.Super. 2014).

2015Commonwealth v. Wolfe, 106 A.3d 800, 801 (Pa. Super. 2014).

2016S67007/16 the sentence imposed at that hearing.” Commonwealth v. Hyland, 875 A.2d 1175, 1183 (Pa.Super. 2005), appeal denied, 890 A.2d 1057 (Pa. 2005), citing Commonwealth v. Mann, 820 A.2d 788, 794 (Pa.Super. 2003), appeal denied, 831 A.2d 599 (Pa. 2003).

2015See Commonwealth v. Nischan, 928 A.2d 349, 355 (Pa.Super. 2007), appeal denied, 936 A.2d 40 (Pa. 2007) (“an appellant can seek to appeal discretionary sentencing issues only after preserving them during the sentencing hearing or in post-sentence motions”), citing Commonwealth v. Malovich, 903 A.2d 1247, 1250 (Pa.Super. 2006); Commonwealth v. Hyland, 875 A.2d 1175, 1183 (Pa.Super. 2005), appeal denied, 890 A.2d 1057 (Pa. 2005) (“Objections to the discretionary aspects of a sentence are generally waived if they are not raised at the sentencing hearing or raised in a motion to modify the sentence

2022This Court then concluded, “because [the appellant’s] pretrial incarceration is attributable to both his probation detainer and the new criminal charges, it must be attributed to either his sentence under the new criminal charges or to a sentence imposed for violation of probation.” Id., at 1026 . -7- J-S27042-21 The PCRA court determined that Appellant’s claim lacks merit.

2022As argued by the Commonwealth, the Smith case is instructive because it makes clear that, in situations where a defendant’s “pretrial incarceration is attributable to both his probation detainer and the new criminal charges” any time credit must be applied “to either the sentence under the new criminal charges or to a sentence imposed for violation of probation.” Commonwealth v. Smith, 853 A.2d 1020, 1026 (Pa. Super. 2004) (emphasis added); see also Martin v. Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole, 840 A.2d 299, 309 (Pa. 2003) (“[W]e hold that, where an offender is incarcerated on both a B

2022As argued by the Commonwealth, the Smith case is instructive because it makes clear that, in situations where a defendant’s “pretrial incarceration is attributable to both his probation detainer and the new criminal charges” any time credit must be applied “to either the sentence under the new criminal charges or to a sentence imposed for violation of probation.” Commonwealth v. Smith, 853 A.2d 1020, 1026 (Pa. Super. 2004) (emphasis added); see also Martin v. Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole, 840 A.2d 299, 309 (Pa. 2003) (“[W]e hold that, where an offender is incarcerated on both a B

2015We specifically stated that where “pretrial incarceration is attributable to both [a] probation detainer and the new criminal charges, it must be attributed to either [a defendant’s] sentence under the new criminal charges or to a sentence imposed for violation of probation.” Id.; see also Martin, supra at 309 (“where an offender is incarcerated on both a [Parole] Board detainer and new criminal charges, all time spent in confinement must be credited to either the new sentence or the original sentence.”) (footnote omitted).

2021A legality of sentence challenge “…may be entertained so long as the reviewing court has jurisdiction.” Commonwealth v. Robinson, 931 A.2d 15, 19-20 (Pa. Super. 2007) (citation omitted)….

2019"A challenge to the legality of the sentence may be raised as a matter of right, is non-waivable, and may be entertained so long as the reviewing court has jurisdiction." Commonwealth v. Robinson, 931 A.2d 15,19-20 (Pa. Super. 2007).

2020Appellant’s Brief at 6-7 (answers omitted). “[I]n reviewing an appeal from a judgment of sentence imposed after the revocation of probation, this Court’s scope of review includes the validity of the hearing, the legality of the final sentence, and if properly raised, the discretionary aspects of the appellant’s sentence.” Commonwealth v. Kuykendall, 2 A.3d 559, 563 (Pa. Super. 2010).

2020Appellant’s Brief at 6-7 (answers omitted). “[I]n reviewing an appeal from a judgment of sentence imposed after the revocation of probation, this Court’s scope of review includes the validity of the hearing, the legality of the final sentence, and if properly raised, the discretionary aspects of the appellant’s sentence.” Commonwealth v. Kuykendall, 2 A.3d 559, 563 (Pa. Super. 2010).

2017“Objections to the discretionary aspects of a sentence are generally waived if they are not raised at the sentencing hearing or raised in a motion to modify the sentence imposed at that hearing.” Commonwealth v. McLaine, 150 A.3d 70, 76 (Pa. 2016) (citation omitted); see also Commonwealth v. Krum, 533 A.2d 134, 135 (Pa. Super. 1987) (stating that “sentencing issues which have not been raised in a motion to modify sentence are waived.”).

1987See Commonwealth v. Krum, 367 Pa.Super. 511, 513-515 , 533 A.2d 134, 135-36 (1987) (en banc); Commonwealth v. Cottman, 327 Pa.Super. 453, 461 , 476 A.2d 40, 44 (1984); Commonwealth v. Albert, 335 Pa. Super. 424 , 484 A.2d 775 (1984).

2017“We have held that an objection to a discretionary aspect of a sentence is clearly waived if it was neither raised at the sentencing hearing nor raised in a motion to modify the sentence imposed at that hearing.” Commonwealth v. Jones, 858 A.2d 1198, 1204 (Pa.Super. 2004) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted); Commonwealth v. Reeves, 778 A.2d 691, 692 (Pa.Super. 2001) (“[I]ssues challenging the discretionary aspects of sentencing must be raised in a post-sentence motion or by raising the claim during the sentencing proceedings.

2016See Commonwealth v. Jones, 858 A.2d 1198, 1204 (Pa. Super. 2004) ( “We have held that an objection to a discretionary aspect of a sentence is clearly waived if it was neither raised at the sentencing hearing nor raised in a motion to modify the sentence imposed at that hearing”).

2015See Commonwealth v. Nischan, 928 A.2d 349, 355 (Pa.Super. 2007), appeal denied, 936 A.2d 40 (Pa. 2007) (“an appellant can seek to appeal discretionary sentencing issues only after preserving them during the sentencing hearing or in post-sentence motions”), citing Commonwealth v. Malovich, 903 A.2d 1247, 1250 (Pa.Super. 2006); Commonwealth v. Hyland, 875 A.2d 1175, 1183 (Pa.Super. 2005), appeal denied, 890 A.2d 1057 (Pa. 2005) (“Objections to the discretionary aspects of a sentence are generally waived if they are not raised at the sentencing hearing or raised in a motion to modify the sentence

2014See Commonwealth v. Nischan, 928 A.2d 349, 355 (Pa.Super. 2007), appeal denied, 936 A.2d 40 (Pa. 2007) (“an appellant can seek to appeal discretionary sentencing issues only after preserving them during the sentencing hearing or in post-sentence motions”), citing Commonwealth v. Malovich, 903 A.2d 1247, 1250 (Pa.Super. 2006); Commonwealth v. Hyland, 875 A.2d 1175, 1183 (Pa.Super. 2005), appeal denied, 890 A.2d 1057 (Pa. 2005) (“Objections to the discretionary aspects of a sentence are generally waived if they are not raised at the sentencing hearing or raised in a motion to modify the sentence

2015See Commonwealth v. Nischan, 928 A.2d 349, 355 (Pa.Super. 2007), appeal denied, 936 A.2d 40 (Pa. 2007) (“an appellant can seek to appeal discretionary sentencing issues only after preserving them during the sentencing hearing or in post-sentence motions”), citing Commonwealth v. Malovich, 903 A.2d 1247, 1250 (Pa.Super. 2006); Commonwealth v. Hyland, 875 A.2d 1175, 1183 (Pa.Super. 2005), appeal denied, 890 A.2d 1057 (Pa. 2005) (“Objections to the discretionary aspects of a sentence are generally waived if they are not raised at the sentencing hearing or raised in a motion to modify the sentence

2014See Commonwealth v. Nischan, 928 A.2d 349, 355 (Pa.Super. 2007), appeal denied, 936 A.2d 40 (Pa. 2007) (“an appellant can seek to appeal discretionary sentencing issues only after preserving them during the sentencing hearing or in post-sentence motions”), citing Commonwealth v. Malovich, 903 A.2d 1247, 1250 (Pa.Super. 2006); Commonwealth v. Hyland, 875 A.2d 1175, 1183 (Pa.Super. 2005), appeal denied, 890 A.2d 1057 (Pa. 2005) (“Objections to the discretionary aspects of a sentence are generally waived if they are not raised at the sentencing hearing or raised in a motion to modify the sentence

2004We have held that "an objection to a discretionary aspect of a sentence is clearly waived if it was neither raised at the sentencing hearing nor raised in a motion to modify the sentence imposed at that hearing." Commonwealth v. Petaccio, 764 A.2d 582, 586 (Pa.Super.2000) quoting Commonwealth v. Losch, 369 Pa.Super. 192 , 535 A.2d 115 , 118 n. 6 (1987).

2004We have held that “an objection to a discretionary aspect of a sentence is clearly waived if it was neither raised at the sentencing hearing nor raised in a motion to modify the sentence imposed at that hearing.” Commonwealth v. Petaccio, 764 A.2d 582, 586 (Pa.Super.2000) quoting Commonwealth v. Losch, 369 Pa.Super. 192 , 535 A.2d 115 , 118 n. 6 (1987).

2019S21034/19 waived if they are not raised at the sentencing hearing or raised in a motion to modify the sentence imposed at that hearing.” (citation omitted)), appeal denied, 909 A.2d 303 (Pa. 2006).

2017See Barnes, supra at 122 ; see also Commonwealth v. Evans, 901 A.2d 528 , 533–34 (Pa. Super. 2006), appeal denied, 909 A.2d 303 (Pa. 2006) (“Objections to the discretionary aspects of a sentence are generally waived if they are not raised at the sentencing hearing or raised in a motion to modify the sentence imposed at that hearing.”) (citation omitted).6 Appellant next challenges the trial court’s sentence of confinement in a state correctional institution, instead of in the county facility.

2016This claim is waived, as Appellant failed to raise the claim at sentencing, in his post- sentence motion, in his Rule 1925(b) statement, or in his Rule 2116 “statement of questions involved.” Commonwealth v. Losch, 535 A.2d 115 , 118 n.6 (Pa. Super. 1987) (“[a]n objection to a discretionary aspect of a sentence is clearly waived if it was neither raised at the sentencing hearing nor raised in a motion to modify the sentence imposed at that hearing”) (Footnote Continued Next Page) -4- J-S65026-16 1/21/16, at 1.

2004We have held that "an objection to a discretionary aspect of a sentence is clearly waived if it was neither raised at the sentencing hearing nor raised in a motion to modify the sentence imposed at that hearing." Commonwealth v. Petaccio, 764 A.2d 582, 586 (Pa.Super.2000) quoting Commonwealth v. Losch, 369 Pa.Super. 192 , 535 A.2d 115 , 118 n. 6 (1987).

2024In addition, “[o]ur Supreme Court has determined that where the trial court is informed by a pre-sentence report, it is presumed that the court is aware of all appropriate sentencing factors and considerations, and that where the court has been so informed, its discretion should not be disturbed.” Commonwealth v. Ventura, 975 A.2d 1128, 1133 (Pa. Super. 2009) (citation omitted). - 13 - J-S01012-24 In reviewing Englert’s challenge to the sentence imposed in the standard range of the Sentencing Guidelines, and the alleged failure to consider particular factors, the trial court specifically noted

2021See Commonwealth v. Mann, 820 A.2d 788, 794 (Pa. Super. 2003) (holding -9- J-S14040-21 that objections to the discretionary aspects of sentence are generally waived if they are not raised at the sentencing hearing or in a motion to modify the sentence imposed at that hearing).5, 6 Additionally, to the extent that Turner raises an issue related to the legality of his sentence, the trial court addressed this issue as follows: In the first instance, we note “…a challenge to the legality of a sentence is never waived.” Commonwealth v. Shugars, 895 A.2d 1270, 1279 (Pa. Super. 2006) (citations omitt

2020In Commonwealth v. Ford, 461 A.2d 1281, 1288-89 (Pa. Super. 1983), this Court explained that a sentence imposed in violation of § 906 is illegal and the issue therefore cannot be waived.

2020Appellant’s brief, at 2. “[W]e review a denial of PCRA relief to determine whether the findings of the PCRA court are supported by the record and free of legal error.” Commonwealth v. Orlando, 156 A.3d 1274, 1280 (Pa.Super. 2017) (quoting Commonwealth v. Treiber, 632 Pa. 449 , 121 A.3d 435, 444 (2015)).

2020Appellant’s brief, at 2. “[W]e review a denial of PCRA relief to determine whether the findings of the PCRA court are supported by the record and free of legal error.” Commonwealth v. Orlando, 156 A.3d 1274, 1280 (Pa.Super. 2017) (quoting Commonwealth v. Treiber, 632 Pa. 449 , 121 A.3d 435, 444 (2015)).

2020Appellant’s brief, at 2. “[W]e review a denial of PCRA relief to determine whether the findings of the PCRA court are supported by the record and free of legal error.” Commonwealth v. Orlando, 156 A.3d 1274, 1280 (Pa.Super. 2017) (quoting Commonwealth v. Treiber, 632 Pa. 449 , 121 A.3d 435, 444 (2015)).

2019See Commonwealth v. Mathias, 121 A.3d 558, 563 (Pa. Super. 2015) (holding - 3 - J -A15001-19 that a sentence imposed for a violation of probation was illegal where the term of probation had already expired); compare Commonwealth v. Mitchell, 955 A.2d 433 ,435 n.2 (Pa. Super. 2008) ("Under Pennsylvania law, an order of probation can be changed or revoked if, at any time before the defendant has completed the maximum period of probation, or before he has begun service of his probation the defendant commits offenses or otherwise demonstrates he is unworthy of probation.") (cleaned up, emphasis ad