bottom standard in Pennsylvania

2025In assessing the voluntariness of a guilty plea, we note “[t]he law does not require that appellant be pleased with the outcome of his decision to enter a plea of guilty: All that is required is that [appellant's] decision to plead guilty be knowingly, voluntarily and intelligently made.” Commonwealth v. Yager, 685 A.2d 1000, 1004 (Pa. Super. 1996) (en banc) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). -6- J-S19005-25 Here, the record is clear that the Commonwealth offered a “cap at the bottom of the standard range on his minimum sentence.” N.T., Guilty Plea and Sentencing, 8/17/23, at 2.

2022See id. at 12 .

2022See Commonwealth v. Leatherbury, 116 A.3d 73, 83 (Pa. Super. 2015) (“Here, each of Leatherbury’s sentences was within or below the standard range of the sentencing guidelines … Thus, the trial court was not required to provide a statement of reasoning and this claim does not raise a substantial question.”). - 20 - J-S10042-22 As for the remainder of the threshold issues we must review before proceeding to substantive review of the instant claim, we note that Appellant has included a statement pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 2119(f) in his brief.

2021Moreover, “[w]here a sentence is within the standard range of the guidelines, Pennsylvania law views the sentence as appropriate under the Sentencing Code.” Commonwealth v. Moury, 992 A.2d 162, 171 (Pa. Super. 2010). -8- J-A12037-21 Here, the trial court noted that it imposed a sentence at the bottom of the standard range of the Sentencing Guidelines.5 See Trial Court Opinion, 8/26/20, at 5; see also Moury, supra. During the July 8, 2020, sentencing hearing, defense counsel informed the court that Carr is a single father with three children, and that he had been employed for three years prior

2021Moreover, “[w]here a sentence is within the standard range of the guidelines, Pennsylvania law views the sentence as appropriate under the Sentencing Code.” Commonwealth v. Moury, 992 A.2d 162, 171 (Pa. Super. 2010). -8- J-A12037-21 Here, the trial court noted that it imposed a sentence at the bottom of the standard range of the Sentencing Guidelines.5 See Trial Court Opinion, 8/26/20, at 5; see also Moury, supra. During the July 8, 2020, sentencing hearing, defense counsel informed the court that Carr is a single father with three children, and that he had been employed for three years prior

2017Collazo was sentenced to an aggregate period of 8 1h to 20 years of incarceration. 1 Collazo's criminal history established that on 10/29/03, Defendant plead guilty in Ohio to separate and independent felony charges - Robbery committed on 12/27/2002 and Felonious Assault committed on 5/2/2003. 2 Rule 720(A)(l) of the Pennsylvania Rules of Criminal Procedure provides as follows: "(I) ... a written post-sentence motion shall be filed no later than 10 days after the imposition of sentence." See Pa.R.Crim.P. 720(A)(l), 42 PA.CONS.STAT.ANN.; see also Commonwealth v. Dreves, 839 A.2d 1122, 1126 (Pa.

2015See Pisciotta, 32 A.3d 825 [1460 MDA 2010 at 12] (Pa. Super. 2011) (unpublished memorandum). -7- J-S53018-15 Furthermore, Alleyne would not provide Pisciotta with relief under the exception at Section 9545(b)(1)(iii) because “neither our Supreme Court, nor the United States Supreme Court has held that Alleyne is to be applied retroactively to cases in which the judgment of sentence had become final.” Commonwealth v. Miller, 102 A.3d 988, 995 (Pa. Super. 2014).9, 10 With respect to Pisciotta’s remaining argument, in which he complains the PCRA court violated Rule 907 by filing its order dismiss

2015See Pisciotta, 32 A.3d 825 [1460 MDA 2010 at 12] (Pa. Super. 2011) (unpublished memorandum). -7- J-S53018-15 Furthermore, Alleyne would not provide Pisciotta with relief under the exception at Section 9545(b)(1)(iii) because “neither our Supreme Court, nor the United States Supreme Court has held that Alleyne is to be applied retroactively to cases in which the judgment of sentence had become final.” Commonwealth v. Miller, 102 A.3d 988, 995 (Pa. Super. 2014).9, 10 With respect to Pisciotta’s remaining argument, in which he complains the PCRA court violated Rule 907 by filing its order dismiss

2014See Commonwealth v. McNabb, 819 A.2d 54, 57 (Pa. Super. 2003) (“an allegation that the sentencing court did not consider certain mitigating factors does not raise a substantial question”); see Commonwealth v. Dunphy, 20 A.3d 1215, 1222 (Pa. Super. 2011) (“[a]n allegation that the sentencing court ‘failed to consider’ or ‘did not adequately consider’ various factors does not raise a substantial question that the sentence was inappropriate”), quoting McKiel, 629 A.2d at 1013 ; see also Commonwealth v. Felmlee, 828 A.2d 1105, 1106 (Pa. Super. 2003) (a claim that the trial court “erred by imposing

2014See Commonwealth v. McNabb, 819 A.2d 54, 57 (Pa. Super. 2003) (“an allegation that the sentencing court did not consider certain mitigating factors does not raise a substantial question”); see Commonwealth v. Dunphy, 20 A.3d 1215, 1222 (Pa. Super. 2011) (“[a]n allegation that the sentencing court ‘failed to consider’ or ‘did not adequately consider’ various factors does not raise a substantial question that the sentence was inappropriate”), quoting McKiel, 629 A.2d at 1013 ; see also Commonwealth v. Felmlee, 828 A.2d 1105, 1106 (Pa. Super. 2003) (a claim that the trial court “erred by imposing

2014See Commonwealth v. McNabb, 819 A.2d 54, 57 (Pa. Super. 2003) (“an allegation that the sentencing court did not consider certain mitigating factors does not raise a substantial question”); see Commonwealth v. Dunphy, 20 A.3d 1215, 1222 (Pa. Super. 2011) (“[a]n allegation that the sentencing court ‘failed to consider’ or ‘did not adequately consider’ various factors does not raise a substantial question that the sentence was inappropriate”), quoting McKiel, 629 A.2d at 1013 ; see also Commonwealth v. Felmlee, 828 A.2d 1105, 1106 (Pa. Super. 2003) (a claim that the trial court “erred by imposing

2014See Commonwealth v. McNabb, 819 A.2d 54, 57 (Pa. Super. 2003) (“an allegation that the sentencing court did not consider certain mitigating factors does not raise a substantial question”); see Commonwealth v. Dunphy, 20 A.3d 1215, 1222 (Pa. Super. 2011) (“[a]n allegation that the sentencing court ‘failed to consider’ or ‘did not adequately consider’ various factors does not raise a substantial question that the sentence was inappropriate”), quoting McKiel, 629 A.2d at 1013 ; see also Commonwealth v. Felmlee, 828 A.2d 1105, 1106 (Pa. Super. 2003) (a claim that the trial court “erred by imposing

2008Commonwealth v. Perry, 883 A.2d 599, 602 (Pa. Super. 2005).