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.
13 Pennsylvania opinions name it 2 courts 1982–2026 9 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. Ravengreen2 sentences2026The Commonwealth asserts Appellant does not claim the trial court failed to consider mitigating factors, “but rather that the court weighed those factors in a manner inconsistent with his wishes.” Id. (quoting Commonwealth v. Raven, 97 A.3d 1244, 1255 (Pa. Super. 2014)). 2025In substance, then, Appellant’s argument is not that the trial court failed to consider her evidence of mitigating factors, “but rather that the court weighed those factors in a manner inconsistent with [her] wishes.” Commonwealth v. Raven, 97 A.3d 1244, 1255 (Pa. Super. 2014). | 6 | 6 |
Commonwealth v. Shugarsgreen1 sentence2026As such, we discern no abuse of discretion, as Appellant has not established “the sentencing court ignored or misapplied the law, exercised its judgment for reasons of partiality, prejudice, bias[,] or ill will,” or “arrived at a manifestly unreasonable decision.” Commonwealth v. Shugars, 895 A.2d 1270, 1275 (Pa. Super. 2006).3 As the trial court noted in its opinion, it is apparent the gist of Appellant’s argument is not that the court failed to consider mitigating factors, but rather that the court weighed those factors ____________________________________________ 3 To the extent Appellant c | 1 | 1 |
Com. v. Velez, J.green1 sentence2026However, “the weight accorded to the mitigating factors or aggravating factors presented to the sentencing court is within the court’s exclusive domain.” Velez, 273 A.3d at 10 (citation omitted). | 1 | 1 |
Commonwealth v. Brickergreen1 sentence2025See Bricker, supra. Moreover, not only do we presume the trial court considered the mitigating factors since it specifically acknowledged it reviewed the presentence investigation report, but the trial court specifically noted it was swayed by the mitigating factors such that it imposed an aggregate sentence less than that recommended by the Commonwealth. | 1 | 1 |
Commonwealth v. MacIasgreen1 sentence2023See id. (“We cannot re-weigh the sentencing factors and impose our judgment in the place of the sentencing court.”). | 1 | 1 |
Commonwealth v. Finnecygreen1 sentence2017Moreover, where the sentencing judge has the benefit of a PSI, “it will be presumed that he or she was aware of the relevant information regarding the defendant’s character and weighed those considerations along with mitigating statutory factors.” Commonwealth v. Finnecy, 135 A.3d 1028, 1038 (Pa. Super. 2016); see also Commonwealth v. Downing, 990 A.2d 788, 794 (Pa. Super. 2010) (“Our Supreme Court has determined that where the trial court is informed by a [PSI], it is presumed that the court is aware of all appropriate sentencing factors and considerations, and that where the court has been s | 1 | 1 |
Commonwealth v. Proctorgreen1 sentence2017Commonwealth v. Proctor, 156 A.3d 261, 274 (Pa. Super. 2017); accord Commonwealth v. Raven, 97 A.3d 1244, 1255 (Pa. Super. 2014) (“The gist of Raven’s argument is not that the court failed to consider the pertinent sentencing factors, but rather that the court weighed those factors in a manner inconsistent with his wishes.”). | 1 | 1 |
Commonwealth v. Downinggreen1 sentence2017Moreover, where the sentencing judge has the benefit of a PSI, “it will be presumed that he or she was aware of the relevant information regarding the defendant’s character and weighed those considerations along with mitigating statutory factors.” Commonwealth v. Finnecy, 135 A.3d 1028, 1038 (Pa. Super. 2016); see also Commonwealth v. Downing, 990 A.2d 788, 794 (Pa. Super. 2010) (“Our Supreme Court has determined that where the trial court is informed by a [PSI], it is presumed that the court is aware of all appropriate sentencing factors and considerations, and that where the court has been s | 1 | 1 |
Mathews v. Eldridgegreen2 sentences1982In upholding the decision of the North Carolina Court of Appeals that they do not, the Court weighed the presumption of the right to counsel in situations potentially involving the deprivation of liberty against three due process factors enunciated in the case of Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319, 335 , 96 S.Ct. 893, 903 , 47 L.Ed.2d 18, 33 (1976): first, the private interest that will be affected by the official action; second, the risk of an erroneous deprivation of such interest through the procedures used, and the probable value, if any, of additional or substitute procedural safeguards; a 1982In upholding the decision of the North Carolina Court of Appeals that they do not, the Court weighed the presumption of the right to counsel in situations potentially involving the deprivation of liberty against three due process factors enunciated in the case of Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319, 335 , 96 S.Ct. 893, 903 , 47 L.Ed.2d 18, 33 (1976): first, the private interest that will be affected by the official action; second, the risk of an erroneous deprivation of such interest through the procedures used, and the probable value, if any, of additional or substitute procedural safeguards; a | 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. Baker
green
1 sentence2026The Commonwealth asserts Appellant does not claim the trial court failed to consider mitigating factors, “but rather that the court weighed those factors in a manner inconsistent with his wishes.” Id. (quoting Commonwealth v. Raven, 97 A.3d 1244, 1255 (Pa. Super. 2014)). | 1 | 2026–2026 |
Commonwealth v. Zirkle
green
1 sentence2024Zirkle, 107 A.3d at 133 . | 1 | 2024–2024 |
Hess v. Hess
green
2 sentences1987Although appellant argues that the trial court violated Hess v. Hess, 327 Pa.Super. 279 , 475 A.2d 796 (1984), by utilizing the criteria in 23 P.S. § 501(a) as a threshold for entitlement to alimony, it is clear that the court weighed the factors set forth in § 501(b), as required by Hess, supra. *555 The court considered, inter alia, relative earnings and earning capacities, sources of income, the time necessary to find appropriate employment, and, by reference to the equitable distribution award, the factors set forth in § 401(d) which duplicate many of the factors in § 501(b). 1987Although appellant argues that the trial court violated Hess v. Hess, 327 Pa.Super. 279 , 475 A.2d 796 (1984), by utilizing the criteria in 23 P.S. § 501(a) as a threshold for entitlement to alimony, it is clear that the court weighed the factors set forth in § 501(b), as required by Hess, supra. *555 The court considered, inter alia, relative earnings and earning capacities, sources of income, the time necessary to find appropriate employment, and, by reference to the equitable distribution award, the factors set forth in § 401(d) which duplicate many of the factors in § 501(b). | 1 | 1987–1987 |
Little v. Streater
green
2 sentences1982The Mathews v. Eldridge balancing test was also employed by the Supreme Court in Little v. Streater, 452 U.S. 1 , 101 S.Ct. 2202 , 68 L.Ed.2d 627 (1981) wherein it was held that the failure to provide a blood grouping test for indigent defendants in paternity actions violated due process. 1982The Mathews v. Eldridge balancing test was also employed by the Supreme Court in Little v. Streater, 452 U.S. 1 , 101 S.Ct. 2202 , 68 L.Ed.2d 627 (1981) wherein it was held that the failure to provide a blood grouping test for indigent defendants in paternity actions violated due process. | 1 | 1982–1982 |
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.
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.