merits of the sentencing claim (Pennsylvania) · Go Syfert
← Pennsylvania issues

merits of the sentencing claim in Pennsylvania

14 Pennsylvania opinions name it 1 courts 2008–2024 1 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.

Followed or applied (1)

CaseFollowedCited
Commonwealth v. Contegreen
pasuperct · 2018 · cited in 1 Pennsylvania opinions naming this issue, 2020–2020
1 sentence

2020Commonwealth v. Conte, 198 A.3d 1169, 1173 (Pa. Super. 2018).

11

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

CaseNegativeCited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Pennsylvania. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (5)

CaseCitedYears
Commonwealth v. Tuladziecki green
pa · 1987
2 sentences

2024Id.

2015“In determining whether a substantial question exists, this Court does not examine the merits of the sentencing claim.” Cartrette, 83 A.3d at 1042 , citing Commonwealth v. Tuladziecki, 522 A.2d 17 (Pa. 1987).

102013–2024
Commonwealth v. Johnson green
pasuperct · 2009
2 sentences

2015“Sentencing is a matter vested within the discretion of the trial court and will not be disturbed absent a manifest abuse of discretion.” Crump, 995 A.2d at 1282 (citing Commonwealth v. Johnson, 967 A.2d 1001 (Pa.Super.2009)).

2015“Sentencing is a matter vested within the discretion of the trial court and will not be disturbed absent a manifest abuse of discretion.” Crump, 995 A.2d at 1282 (citing Commonwealth v. Johnson, 967 A.2d 1001 (Pa.Super.2009)).

22015–2015
Commonwealth v. Crump green
pasuperct · 2010
2 sentences

2015“Sentencing is a matter vested within the discretion of the trial court and will not be disturbed absent a manifest abuse of discretion.” Crump, 995 A.2d at 1282 (citing Commonwealth v. Johnson, 967 A.2d 1001 (Pa.Super.2009)).

2015“Sentencing is a matter vested within the discretion of the trial court and will not be disturbed absent a manifest abuse of discretion.” Crump, 995 A.2d at 1282 (citing Commonwealth v. Johnson, 967 A.2d 1001 (Pa.Super.2009)).

22015–2015
Commonwealth v. Cartrette green
pasuperct · 2013
1 sentence

2015“In determining whether a substantial question exists, this Court does not examine the merits of the sentencing claim.” Cartrette, 83 A.3d at 1042 , citing Commonwealth v. Tuladziecki, 522 A.2d 17 (Pa. 1987).

12015–2015
Commonwealth v. Malovich green
pasuperct · 2006
2 sentences

2008Id. ¶ 15 If an appellant convinces us that a claim presents a substantial question, then we will permit the appeal and will proceed to evaluate the merits of the sentencing claim.

2008Id.

12008–2008

Statutes the citing opinions construe

PA § 42 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 9781 (6) PA § 42 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 9721 (4) PA § 42 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 9771 (4)

Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.

Where else courts name it

PA 14 (2008–2024) CA 2 (2023–2025)

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.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check