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.
20 Pennsylvania opinions name it 1 courts 1979–2026 10 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. Hardygreen2 sentences2024This Court has explained that “to preserve a claim of error pertaining to the right of allocution, the defendant must raise the claim before the trial court at the time of sentencing or in a post-sentence motion, or suffer waiver of the claim on appeal.” Hardy, 99 A.3d at 579 (citing Commonwealth v. Jacobs, 900 A.2d 368 , 372 (Pa. Super. 2006) (en banc)). 2024This Court has explained that “to preserve a claim of error pertaining to the right of allocution, the defendant must raise the claim before the trial court at the time of sentencing or in a post-sentence motion, or suffer waiver of the claim on appeal.” Hardy, 99 A.3d at 579 (citing Commonwealth v. Jacobs, 900 A.2d 368, 372 (Pa. Super. 2006) (en banc)). | 8 | 9 |
Commonwealth v. Jacobsgreen2 sentences2024This Court has explained that “to preserve a claim of error pertaining to the right of allocution, the defendant must raise the claim before the trial court at the time of sentencing or in a post-sentence motion, or suffer waiver of the claim on appeal.” Hardy, 99 A.3d at 579 (citing Commonwealth v. Jacobs, 900 A.2d 368 , 372 (Pa. Super. 2006) (en banc)). 2024This Court has explained that “to preserve a claim of error pertaining to the right of allocution, the defendant must raise the claim before the trial court at the time of sentencing or in a post-sentence motion, or suffer waiver of the claim on appeal.” Hardy, 99 A.3d at 579 (citing Commonwealth v. Jacobs, 900 A.2d 368, 372 (Pa. Super. 2006) (en banc)). | 7 | 7 |
Commonwealth v. Gillardgreen2 sentences2023See Pa.R.Crim.P. 607; see also Commonwealth v. Gillard, 850 A.2d 1273, 1277 (Pa. Super. 2004) ____________________________________________ 7 In the Anders brief, Counsel first alleges that “the complaint’s testimony was sufficient to satisfy each element of the crimes for which the trial court convicted” Appellant. 2022See Pa.R.Crim.P. 607; see also Commonwealth v. Gillard, 850 A.2d 1273, 1277 (Pa. Super. 2004) (“As noted in the comment to Rule 607, the purpose of this rule is to make it clear that a challenge to the weight of the evidence must be raised with the trial judge or it will be waived.”) (punctuation omitted); Commonwealth v. ____________________________________________ 5 Based on the nature of the claims, we have reordered them in our analysis for ease of disposition. -7- J-S34042-21 Burkett, 830 A.2d 1034 , 1037 n.3 (Pa. Super. 2003) (generally, a claim challenging the weight of the evidence can | 2 | 2 |
Liquid Carbonic Corp. v. Cooper & Reese, Inc.green1 sentence2026See Liquid Carbonic Corp. v. Cooper & Reese, Inc., 416 A.2d 549, 550 (Pa. Super. 1979). | 1 | 1 |
Com. v. Rivera, W.green1 sentence2025See Pa.R.Crim.P. 607(A)(1)-(3) (providing that a defendant must raise a challenge to the weight of the evidence with the trial court — either orally before sentencing or in a written pre- or post-sentence motion — to preserve the issue for appeal); see also Commonwealth v. Rivera, 238 A.3d 482, 497 (Pa. Super. 2020) (holding that failure to raise a weight of the evidence claim in a post-sentence motion results in waiver on appeal). | 1 | 1 |
Com. v. Juray, R., Jr.green2 sentences2024Because the trial judge has had the opportunity to hear and see the ____________________________________________ 1 To preserve a weight of the evidence claim for appeal, a defendant must raise this claim “(1) orally, on the record, at any time before sentencing; (2) by written motion at any time before sentencing; or (3) in a post-sentence motion.” Commonwealth v. Juray, 275 A.3d 1037 , 1047 (Pa.Super. 2022), (quoting Pa.R.Crim.P. 607(A)(1)-(3)). 2024Because the trial judge has had the opportunity to hear and see the ____________________________________________ 1 To preserve a weight of the evidence claim for appeal, a defendant must raise this claim “(1) orally, on the record, at any time before sentencing; (2) by written motion at any time before sentencing; or (3) in a post-sentence motion.” Commonwealth v. Juray, 275 A.3d 1037, 1047 (Pa.Super. 2022), (quoting Pa.R.Crim.P. 607(A)(1)-(3)). | 1 | 1 |
Commonwealth v. Coolbaughgreen1 sentence2023See, e.g., Commonwealth v. Coolbaugh, 770 A.2d 788, 791 (Pa. Super. 2001)(where trial court misinforms a defendant of time in which to appeal, an untimely appeal filing will be excused); Commonwealth v. Bogden, 528 A.2d 168, 170 (Pa. Super. 1987)(court below misinformed appellant in not advising him that an appeal had to be taken within thirty days of the entry of sentence and therefore, ____________________________________________ 1 In Jacobs, “the panel explained that in order to preserve a claim of error pertaining to the right of allocution, the defendant must raise the claim before the tr | 1 | 1 |
Commonwealth v. Bogdengreen1 sentence2023See, e.g., Commonwealth v. Coolbaugh, 770 A.2d 788, 791 (Pa. Super. 2001)(where trial court misinforms a defendant of time in which to appeal, an untimely appeal filing will be excused); Commonwealth v. Bogden, 528 A.2d 168, 170 (Pa. Super. 1987)(court below misinformed appellant in not advising him that an appeal had to be taken within thirty days of the entry of sentence and therefore, ____________________________________________ 1 In Jacobs, “the panel explained that in order to preserve a claim of error pertaining to the right of allocution, the defendant must raise the claim before the tr | 1 | 1 |
Commonwealth v. Hurstgreen1 sentence2023See, e.g., Commonwealth v. Coolbaugh, 770 A.2d 788, 791 (Pa. Super. 2001)(where trial court misinforms a defendant of time in which to appeal, an untimely appeal filing will be excused); Commonwealth v. Bogden, 528 A.2d 168, 170 (Pa. Super. 1987)(court below misinformed appellant in not advising him that an appeal had to be taken within thirty days of the entry of sentence and therefore, ____________________________________________ 1 In Jacobs, “the panel explained that in order to preserve a claim of error pertaining to the right of allocution, the defendant must raise the claim before the tr | 1 | 1 |
Commonwealth v. Tiradogreen1 sentence2020Commonwealth v. Tirado, 870 A.2d 362, 365 (Pa.Super. 2005). | 1 | 1 |
Commonwealth v. Jonesgreen1 sentence2019See Pa.R.Crim.P. 607; Commonwealth v. Jones, 191 A.3d 830, 834-835 (Pa. Super. 2018) (challenge to weight of evidence must be raised in timely pre or post-trial motion). | 1 | 1 |
Commonwealth v. Thomasgreen1 sentence2019See Commonwealth v. Thomas, 553 A.2d 918, 919 (Pa. 1989). -9- J-S73034-18 However, “in order to preserve a claim of error pertaining to the right of allocution, the defendant must raise the claim before the trial court at the time of sentencing or in a post-sentence motion, or suffer waiver of the claim on appeal.” Commonwealth v. Hardy, 99 A.3d 577, 579 (Pa. Super. 2014), citing Commonwealth v. Jacobs, 900 A.2d 368, 372 (Pa. Super. 2006) (en banc). | 1 | 1 |
Commonwealth v. Haguegreen1 sentence2018Id.; see also Commonwealth v. Hague, 840 A.2d 1018, 1019 (Pa. Super. 2003) (holding that the failure to afford a defendant the right to allocution requires remand to allow for allocution prior to resentencing). “[T]o preserve a claim of error pertaining to the right of allocution, the defendant must raise the claim before the trial court at the time of sentencing or in a post-sentence motion, or suffer waiver of the claim on -8- J-A32017-17 appeal.” Commonwealth v. Hardy, 99 A.3d 577, 579 (Pa. Super. 2014) (citing Commonwealth v. Jacobs, 900 A.2d 368, 372 (Pa. Super. 2006) (en banc)). | 1 | 1 |
Commonwealth v. Rykardgreen1 sentence2014Commonwealth v. Rykard, 55 A.3d 1177, 1189 (Pa. Super. 2012). | 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. McPhail
green
1 sentence2023See Pa.R.Crim.P. 578 (stating motion for change of venue should be raised in omnibus pretrial motion at “earliest feasible” time); McPhail, 692 A.2d at 144 n.3 (explaining that a challenge to venue is waived if not properly preserved). | 1 | 2023–2023 |
Commonwealth v. Katz
green
1 sentence2023See, e.g., Commonwealth v. Coolbaugh, 770 A.2d 788, 791 (Pa. Super. 2001)(where trial court misinforms a defendant of time in which to appeal, an untimely appeal filing will be excused); Commonwealth v. Bogden, 528 A.2d 168, 170 (Pa. Super. 1987)(court below misinformed appellant in not advising him that an appeal had to be taken within thirty days of the entry of sentence and therefore, ____________________________________________ 1 In Jacobs, “the panel explained that in order to preserve a claim of error pertaining to the right of allocution, the defendant must raise the claim before the tr | 1 | 2023–2023 |
Commonwealth v. Evans
green
1 sentence2023See, e.g., Commonwealth v. Coolbaugh, 770 A.2d 788, 791 (Pa. Super. 2001)(where trial court misinforms a defendant of time in which to appeal, an untimely appeal filing will be excused); Commonwealth v. Bogden, 528 A.2d 168, 170 (Pa. Super. 1987)(court below misinformed appellant in not advising him that an appeal had to be taken within thirty days of the entry of sentence and therefore, ____________________________________________ 1 In Jacobs, “the panel explained that in order to preserve a claim of error pertaining to the right of allocution, the defendant must raise the claim before the tr | 1 | 2023–2023 |
Commonwealth v. Burkett
green
1 sentence2022See Pa.R.Crim.P. 607; see also Commonwealth v. Gillard, 850 A.2d 1273, 1277 (Pa. Super. 2004) (“As noted in the comment to Rule 607, the purpose of this rule is to make it clear that a challenge to the weight of the evidence must be raised with the trial judge or it will be waived.”) (punctuation omitted); Commonwealth v. ____________________________________________ 5 Based on the nature of the claims, we have reordered them in our analysis for ease of disposition. -7- J-S34042-21 Burkett, 830 A.2d 1034 , 1037 n.3 (Pa. Super. 2003) (generally, a claim challenging the weight of the evidence can | 1 | 2022–2022 |
Com. v. Hogan
green
1 sentence1979The Commonwealth also relies upon the Opinion Announcing the Judgment of the Court in Commonwealth v. Hogan, 482 Pa. 333 , 393 *230 A.2d 1133 (1978), which suggested that a defendant must raise a claim of double jeopardy in post-verdict motions after trial. | 1 | 1979–1979 |
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.