14 Pennsylvania opinions name it 3 courts 1974–2025 2 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. Mourygreen1 sentence2025See, e.g., Moury, 992 A.2d at 171 (holding a sentence within the standard range of the guidelines is viewed as appropriate, and the sentence is not unreasonable where the trial court had the benefit of a PSI and imposed a standard-range sentence); see also Commonwealth v. Raven, 97 A.3d 1244, 1254-55 (Pa. Super. 2014) (holding standard-range sentences were neither unreasonable nor excessive where the “record reflects that the [sentencing] court carefully considered all of the evidence presented at the sentencing hearing”). | 1 | 1 |
Commonwealth v. Ravengreen1 sentence2025See, e.g., Moury, 992 A.2d at 171 (holding a sentence within the standard range of the guidelines is viewed as appropriate, and the sentence is not unreasonable where the trial court had the benefit of a PSI and imposed a standard-range sentence); see also Commonwealth v. Raven, 97 A.3d 1244, 1254-55 (Pa. Super. 2014) (holding standard-range sentences were neither unreasonable nor excessive where the “record reflects that the [sentencing] court carefully considered all of the evidence presented at the sentencing hearing”). | 1 | 1 |
Commonwealth v. Schergreen1 sentence2024See Scher, 803 A.2d at 1221-22 ; Urwin, 219 A.3d at 173 (Pa. Super. 2019). -4- J-S30024-24 Hill next asserts the court abused its discretion by failing to dismiss for lack of a prima facie case, and that a trooper improperly represented the Commonwealth at his preliminary hearing. | 1 | 1 |
Com. v. Urwin, R.green1 sentence2024See Scher, 803 A.2d at 1221-22 ; Urwin, 219 A.3d at 173 (Pa. Super. 2019). -4- J-S30024-24 Hill next asserts the court abused its discretion by failing to dismiss for lack of a prima facie case, and that a trooper improperly represented the Commonwealth at his preliminary hearing. | 1 | 1 |
Com. v. Lehman, P.green1 sentence2024See Commonwealth v. Lehman, 275 A.3d 513 , 520 n.5 (Pa. Super. 2022). 4 Even were we to reach Hill’s claim concerning the trooper’s questioning at the preliminary hearing, we would find it meritless because Pa.R.Crim.P. 542(B) authorizes an affiant to question a witness where no attorney appears on behalf of the Commonwealth. -5- J-S30024-24 The trial court noted that although Hill made a request for new counsel at the hearing on his pre-trial motions and claimed disagreements with his court-appointed standby counsel,5 he did not renew at trial his request for new counsel. | 1 | 1 |
Commonwealth v. Gouldgreen1 sentence2024“This Court will not act as counsel and will not develop arguments on behalf of an appellant.” Id; see also Commonwealth v. Gould, 912 A.2d 869, 873 (Pa. Super. 2006) (holding that an appellant’s failure to support his claim with factual background and citations to the record represented “serious deviations from the briefing requirements of the Rules of Appella[te] Procedure,” and waives his review of the claim) (citation omitted).7 Judgment of sentence affirmed. ____________________________________________ 7 Even were Hill’s claim reviewable, it would be meritless. | 1 | 1 |
Commonwealth v. Sierragreen1 sentence2019See Sierra, 752 A.2d at 913 . | 1 | 1 |
Commonwealth v. Sattazahngreen1 sentence2016See Commonwealth v. Reid, 99 A.3d 470, 494 (Pa. 2014) (stating that claims not raised in a PCRA petition cannot be raised for the first time on appeal); Commonwealth v. Roney, 79 A.3d 595, 611 (Pa. 2013) (stating that claims are waived for failing to present them to the PCRA court). -3- J-S35040-16 Even if we addressed Hill’s claim, we note that “in order to prevail under the newly discovered [facts] exception, [an] [a]ppellant must plead and prove that the facts upon which the claim is predicated were unknown to him and could not have been ascertained earlier by the exercise of due diligence. | 1 | 1 |
Commonwealth v. Cintoragreen1 sentence2016See Commonwealth v. Cintora, 69 A.3d 759, 763 (Pa. Super. 2013) (stating that to fulfill the 60-day requirement, defendants need to file their petitions within 60 days from the date of the court’s decision). | 1 | 1 |
Commonwealth v. Roneygreen1 sentence2016See Commonwealth v. Reid, 99 A.3d 470, 494 (Pa. 2014) (stating that claims not raised in a PCRA petition cannot be raised for the first time on appeal); Commonwealth v. Roney, 79 A.3d 595, 611 (Pa. 2013) (stating that claims are waived for failing to present them to the PCRA court). -3- J-S35040-16 Even if we addressed Hill’s claim, we note that “in order to prevail under the newly discovered [facts] exception, [an] [a]ppellant must plead and prove that the facts upon which the claim is predicated were unknown to him and could not have been ascertained earlier by the exercise of due diligence. | 1 | 1 |
Commonwealth v. Reid, A., Apltgreen1 sentence2016See Commonwealth v. Reid, 99 A.3d 470, 494 (Pa. 2014) (stating that claims not raised in a PCRA petition cannot be raised for the first time on appeal); Commonwealth v. Roney, 79 A.3d 595, 611 (Pa. 2013) (stating that claims are waived for failing to present them to the PCRA court). -3- J-S35040-16 Even if we addressed Hill’s claim, we note that “in order to prevail under the newly discovered [facts] exception, [an] [a]ppellant must plead and prove that the facts upon which the claim is predicated were unknown to him and could not have been ascertained earlier by the exercise of due diligence. | 1 | 1 |
Yocabet v. UPMC Presbyteriangreen1 sentence2016Accord Yocabet v. UPMC Presbyterian, 119 A.3d 1012 , 1027–1028 (Pa. Super. 2015) (“A corporation is a creature of legal fiction, which can act or ‘speak’ only through its officers, directors, or other agents.”). | 1 | 1 |
Commonwealth v. Dillingergreen2 sentences1974See, e.g., Commonwealth v. Dillinger, 440 Pa. 336 , 269 A.2d 505 (1970); Commonwealth v. Brown, 436 Pa. 423 , 260 A.2d 742 (1970); Commonwealth v. Culpeper, 434 Pa. 15 , 252 A.2d 624 (1969). 1974See, e.g., Commonwealth v. Dillinger, 440 Pa. 336 , 269 A.2d 505 (1970); Commonwealth v. Brown, 436 Pa. 423 , 260 A.2d 742 (1970); Commonwealth v. Culpeper, 434 Pa. 15 , 252 A.2d 624 (1969). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Pennsylvania. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Rogers v. Pennsylvania Board of Probation & Parole
green
1 sentence2020Rogers v. Pa. Bd. of Prob. & Parole, 724 A.2d 319 (Pa. 1999). _____________________________________ RENÉE COHN JUBELIRER, Judge | 1 | 2020–2020 |
Harman Ex Rel. Harman v. Borah
green
1 sentence2020Id. at 1123 . | 1 | 2020–2020 |
Commonwealth v. Hill
green
1 sentence2015April 7, 2005) (unpublished memorandum). -4- J-S59023-11 Commonwealth v. Hill, 42 A.3d 1085 (Pa. Super. 2012), reversed, 104 A.3d 1220 (Pa. 2014). | 1 | 2015–2015 |
Commonwealth, Aplt v. Hill, E.
green
1 sentence2015April 7, 2005) (unpublished memorandum). -4- J-S59023-11 Commonwealth v. Hill, 42 A.3d 1085 (Pa. Super. 2012), reversed, 104 A.3d 1220 (Pa. 2014). | 1 | 2015–2015 |
Commonwealth v. Hill
green
1 sentence2014Hill, supra. Therefore, for all of these reasons, Hill issue on appeal waived for failure to list it in his Rule 1925(b) statement. | 1 | 2014–2014 |
Commonwealth v. Young
green
2 sentences1995In Commonwealth v. Young, 536 Pa. 57 , 637 A.2d 1313 (1993), the appellant presented essentially the same argument claiming that the trial court had erred in refusing his request to instruct the jury that it was free to impose a life sentence for any reason whatsoever. 1995In Commonwealth v. Young, 536 Pa. 57 , 637 A.2d 1313 (1993), the appellant presented essentially the same argument claiming that the trial court had erred in refusing his request to instruct the jury that it was free to impose a life sentence for any reason whatsoever. | 1 | 1995–1995 |
Commonwealth v. Hinchcliffe
green
2 sentences1993Hinchcliffe, 479 Pa. at 552 , 388 A.2d at 1069 . 1993Hinchcliffe, 479 Pa. at 552 , 388 A.2d at 1069 . | 1 | 1993–1993 |
Commonwealth v. Hoover
green
2 sentences1988In Hoover and Hernandez , in response to *41 that precise allegation, we held that “the sentences imposed under Section 1543(b) are not disproportionate to the gravity of the offense and are not repugnant to societal standards of justice.” Hoover, 343 Pa.Super. at 377 , 494 A.2d 1131 . 1 Accordingly, Hill’s assertion is meritless. 1988In Hoover and Hernandez , in response to *41 that precise allegation, we held that “the sentences imposed under Section 1543(b) are not disproportionate to the gravity of the offense and are not repugnant to societal standards of justice.” Hoover, 343 Pa.Super. at 377 , 494 A.2d 1131 . 1 Accordingly, Hill’s assertion is meritless. | 1 | 1988–1988 |
Commonwealth v. Culpeper
green
2 sentences1974See, e.g., Commonwealth v. Dillinger, 440 Pa. 336 , 269 A.2d 505 (1970); Commonwealth v. Brown, 436 Pa. 423 , 260 A.2d 742 (1970); Commonwealth v. Culpeper, 434 Pa. 15 , 252 A.2d 624 (1969). 1974See, e.g., Commonwealth v. Dillinger, 440 Pa. 336 , 269 A.2d 505 (1970); Commonwealth v. Brown, 436 Pa. 423 , 260 A.2d 742 (1970); Commonwealth v. Culpeper, 434 Pa. 15 , 252 A.2d 624 (1969). | 1 | 1974–1974 |
Commonwealth v. Brown
green
2 sentences1974See, e.g., Commonwealth v. Dillinger, 440 Pa. 336 , 269 A.2d 505 (1970); Commonwealth v. Brown, 436 Pa. 423 , 260 A.2d 742 (1970); Commonwealth v. Culpeper, 434 Pa. 15 , 252 A.2d 624 (1969). 1974See, e.g., Commonwealth v. Dillinger, 440 Pa. 336 , 269 A.2d 505 (1970); Commonwealth v. Brown, 436 Pa. 423 , 260 A.2d 742 (1970); Commonwealth v. Culpeper, 434 Pa. 15 , 252 A.2d 624 (1969). | 1 | 1974–1974 |
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.