merits of his sentencing claim in Pennsylvania

2023See Commonwealth v. McNabb, 819 A.2d 54, 56 (Pa. Super. 2003) (concluding appellant’s claim that sentencing court did not sufficiently state its reasons for imposing sentence raised a substantial question); Commonwealth v. Caldwell, 117 A.3d 763, 770 (Pa. Super. 2015) (en banc) (“This Court has [] held that an excessive sentence claim—in conjunction with an assertion that the [trial] court failed to consider mitigating factors—raises a substantial question.” (citation omitted)); Commonwealth v. Clarke, 70 A.3d 1281, 1287 (Pa. Super. 2013) (“[A] claim that the trial -9- J-S10011-23 court focuse

2023See Commonwealth v. Caldwell, 117 A.3d 763, 770 (Pa. Super. 2015) (en banc) (“This Court has [] held that an excessive -7- J-S10004-23 sentence claim—in conjunction with an assertion that the [trial] court failed to consider mitigating factors—raises a substantial question.” (citation omitted)).

2024“Sentencing is a matter vested in the sound discretion of the sentencing judge, and a sentence will not be disturbed on appeal absent a manifest abuse of discretion.” Commonwealth v. Edwards, 194 A.3d 625, 637 (Pa.Super. 2018) (citation omitted).

2023See Commonwealth v. Holiday, 954 A.2d 6, 10 (Pa. Super. 2008) (“A claim that the sentencing court imposed a sentence outside of the guideline ranges without specifying sufficient reasons presents a substantial question for our review.”); Commonwealth v. Eby, 784 A.2d 204, 206 (Pa. Super. 2001) (“A claim that the sentencing court imposed an unreasonable sentence by sentencing outside the guidelines presents a ‘substantial question’ for our review.”).

2023See Commonwealth v. McNabb, 819 A.2d 54, 56 (Pa. Super. 2003) (concluding appellant’s claim that sentencing court did not sufficiently state its reasons for imposing sentence raised a substantial question); Commonwealth v. Caldwell, 117 A.3d 763, 770 (Pa. Super. 2015) (en banc) (“This Court has [] held that an excessive sentence claim—in conjunction with an assertion that the [trial] court failed to consider mitigating factors—raises a substantial question.” (citation omitted)); Commonwealth v. Clarke, 70 A.3d 1281, 1287 (Pa. Super. 2013) (“[A] claim that the trial -9- J-S10011-23 court focuse

2023See Commonwealth v. Sunealitis, 153 A.3d 414 , 421 (Pa. Super. 2016) (stating that “an allegation that the trial court inappropriately calculated the offense gravity score raises a substantial question.”).

2023See Commonwealth v. Sunealitis, 153 A.3d 414, 421 (Pa. Super. 2016) (stating that “an allegation that the trial court inappropriately calculated the offense gravity score raises a substantial question.”).

2023See Commonwealth v. Holiday, 954 A.2d 6, 10 (Pa. Super. 2008) (“A claim that the sentencing court imposed a sentence outside of the guideline ranges without specifying sufficient reasons presents a substantial question for our review.”); Commonwealth v. Eby, 784 A.2d 204, 206 (Pa. Super. 2001) (“A claim that the sentencing court imposed an unreasonable sentence by sentencing outside the guidelines presents a ‘substantial question’ for our review.”).

2023See Commonwealth v. McNabb, 819 A.2d 54, 56 (Pa. Super. 2003) (concluding appellant’s claim that sentencing court did not sufficiently state its reasons for imposing sentence raised a substantial question); Commonwealth v. Caldwell, 117 A.3d 763, 770 (Pa. Super. 2015) (en banc) (“This Court has [] held that an excessive sentence claim—in conjunction with an assertion that the [trial] court failed to consider mitigating factors—raises a substantial question.” (citation omitted)); Commonwealth v. Clarke, 70 A.3d 1281, 1287 (Pa. Super. 2013) (“[A] claim that the trial -9- J-S10011-23 court focuse

2019See e.g., Commonwealth v. Swope, 123 A.3d 333, 338-39 (noting claim that the imposition of consecutive sentences resulted in an excessive aggregate sentence may raise a substantial question).

2018See, e.g., Commonwealth v. Wilson, 147 A.3d 7, 14 (Pa. Super. 2016)(explaining that when an appellant offers no citation to pertinent case law or other authority in support of an argument, the claim is waived); see also Pa.R.A.P. 2119 (providing that the argument in an appellant’s brief “shall be divided into as many parts as there are questions to be argued,” include citations to the record, and references to the record).

2018See Commonwealth v. Starr , 541 Pa. 564 , 664 A.2d 1326 , 1331 (1995) (explaining that, under the doctrine of law of the case, a question decided by an appellate court may not be altered on a second appeal to that same court unless, inter alia , "the prior holding was clearly erroneous and would create a manifest injustice if followed"). 5 As noted above, Judge Cohen, in Appellant's nunc pro tunc direct appeal, did opine that Appellant's 2006 VOP sentence should be vacated and the case remanded for resentencing.

2018See Commonwealth v. Starr , 541 Pa. 564 , 664 A.2d 1326 , 1331 (1995) (explaining that, under the doctrine of law of the case, a question decided by an appellate court may not be altered on a second appeal to that same court unless, inter alia , "the prior holding was clearly erroneous and would create a manifest injustice if followed"). 5 As noted above, Judge Cohen, in Appellant's nunc pro tunc direct appeal, did opine that Appellant's 2006 VOP sentence should be vacated and the case remanded for resentencing.

2016See Commonwealth v. Haynes, 125 A.3d 800, 807 (Pa. Super. 2015).

2016See Moury, 992 -4- J-S23005-16 A.2d at 170; Commonwealth v. Hartle, 894 A.2d 800, 806 (Pa. Super. 2006).

2016“We analyze the sentencing court’s decision under an abuse of discretion standard.” Zeigler, supra at 661 (citation omitted).

2015See Commonwealth v. Hanson, 856 A.2d 1254, 1257 (Pa. Super. 2004) (Under 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9781(c)(3), a claim that “the sentencing court sentenced outside the sentencing guidelines,” presents a substantial question.). -6- J-S69038-15 Although Appellant has successfully sought review of the merits of his sentencing claim, our review of the record as a whole belies Appellant’s assertion of trial court error.

2011See Commonwealth v. Kiesel, 854 A.2d 530, 533 (Pa.Super.2004) (explaining that, when the appellant has not included a Rule 2119(f) statement, and the appellee has not objected, this Court may ignore the omission and determine if there is a substantial question that the sentence imposed was not appropriate).