mitigating statutory factors in Pennsylvania

2025Here, the trial court explained its sentencing considerations, as follows: “Our Supreme Court has held that where a pre-sentence report exists, we shall ‘presume that the sentencing judge was aware of the relevant information regarding the defendant’s character and weighed those considerations along with the mitigating statutory factors.’” Commonwealth v. Miller, 275 A.3d 530, 534 (Pa. Super. 2022); Commonwealth v. Knox, 165 A.3d 925, 930 (Pa. Super. 2017); Commonwealth v. McKiel, … 629 A.2d 1012, 1013-14 ([Pa. Super.] 1993) (quoting Commonwealth v. Devers, … 546 A.2d 12, 18 ([Pa.] 1988)).

2024First, as the trial court noted: The Pennsylvania Supreme [c]ourt emphasized that “whe[re] pre- sentence reports exist, [it] will continue to presume that the sentencing judge was aware of relevant information regarding the defendant’s character and weighed those considerations along with the mitigating statutory factors.” Commonwealth v. Devers, 546 A.2d 12, 18 (Pa. 1988).

2023Further, “[w]here the sentencing judge had the benefit of a [PSI], it will be presumed that he was aware of relevant information regarding [the defendant’s] character and weighed those considerations along with the mitigating statutory factors.” Fullin, 892 A.2d at 849-50 (citation omitted).

2023Further, “[w]here the sentencing judge had the benefit of a pre-sentence [investigation] report [(PSI report)], it will be presumed that he was aware of relevant information regarding [the defendant’s] character and weighed those considerations along with the mitigating statutory factors.” Id. at 849-50 (citation omitted).

2025See 204 Pa. Code § 307.2 (b). - 12 - J-S39011-24 the defendant has been convicted of another crime; or (2) the conduct of the defendant indicates that it is likely that he will commit another crime if he is not imprisoned; or (3) such a sentence is essential to vindicate the authority of the court.” Id. at § 9771(c).7 “[W]here the sentencing judge had the benefit of a pre-sentence report, [appellate courts will presume] that [the judge] was aware of relevant information regarding appellant’s character and weighed those considerations along with the mitigating statutory factors.” Commonwealth v

2024See Commonwealth v. Conklin, 275 A.3d 1087, 1098 (Pa. Super. 2022), appeal denied, 285 A.3d 883 (Pa. 2022). “[W]here the sentencing judge had the benefit of a [PSI], it will be presumed that he was aware of relevant information regarding appellant's character and weighed those considerations along with the mitigating statutory factors.” Conte, 198 A.3d at 1177 (internal citation and quotation marks omitted).

2020Commonwealth v. Cruz-Centeno, 668 A.2d 536, 545 (Pa. Super. 1995) (quoting Commonwealth v. Devers, 546 A.2d at 18 ; Commonwealth v. Sanders, 627 A.2d 183, 188 (Pa. Super. 1993).

2019Commonwealth v. Cruz-Centeno, 668 A.2d 536, 545 (Pa.Super. 1995)(quotation and citations omitted).

2019When a PSI report exists, this Court presumes that the trial court “was aware of relevant information regarding the defendant’s character and weighed those considerations along with the mitigating statutory factors.” Commonwealth v. Finnecy, 135 A.3d 1028, 1038 (Pa. Super. 2016).

2019When a PSI report exists, this Court presumes that the trial court “was aware of relevant information regarding the defendant’s character and weighed those considerations along with the mitigating statutory factors.” Commonwealth v. Finnecy, 135 A.3d 1028, 1038 (Pa. Super. 2016).

2022“Where the sentencing judge had the benefit of a pre-sentence report, it will be presumed that he was aware of relevant information regarding appellant’s character and weighed those considerations along with the mitigating statutory factors.” Commonwealth v. L.N., 787 A.2d 1064, 1071-72 (Pa. Super. 2001).

2018(Notes of testimony, 4/24/17 at 9.) “Where the sentencing judge had the benefit of a [PSI], it will be presumed that [the sentencing court] was aware of relevant information regarding [defendant’s] character and weighed those considerations along with the mitigating statutory factors.” Commonwealth v. Fullin, 892 A.2d 843, 849-850 (Pa.Super. 2006), quoting Commonwealth v. L.N., 787 A.2d 1064 (Pa.Super. 2001).

2025Here, the trial court explained its sentencing considerations, as follows: “Our Supreme Court has held that where a pre-sentence report exists, we shall ‘presume that the sentencing judge was aware of the relevant information regarding the defendant’s character and weighed those considerations along with the mitigating statutory factors.’” Commonwealth v. Miller, 275 A.3d 530, 534 (Pa. Super. 2022); Commonwealth v. Knox, 165 A.3d 925, 930 (Pa. Super. 2017); Commonwealth v. McKiel, … 629 A.2d 1012, 1013-14 ([Pa. Super.] 1993) (quoting Commonwealth v. Devers, … 546 A.2d 12, 18 ([Pa.] 1988)).

2020"Our Supreme Court has held that where a pre - sentence report exists, we shall 'presume that the sentencing judge was aware of the relevant in- formation regarding the defendant's character and weighed those considerations along with the mitigating statutory factors.'" Commonwealth v. McKiel, 427 Pa.Super. 561, 565 , 629 A.2d 1012, 1013-14 (1993) (quoting Commonwealth v. Devers , 519 Pa. 88, 101-102 , 546 A.2d 12, 18 (1988)).

2015See Commonwealth v. Tirado, 870 A.2d 362, 368 (Pa. Super. 2005); Commonwealth v. Boyer, 856 A.2d 149, 154 (Pa. Super. 2004), aff'd, 891 A.2d 1265 (Pa. 2006). -8- J-S11009-15 Appellant argues on appeal that the pre-sentence investigation report was defective in that it failed to set forth her life expectancy or the effect incarceration would have on her.

2015See Commonwealth v. Tirado, 870 A.2d 362, 368 (Pa. Super. 2005); Commonwealth v. Boyer, 856 A.2d 149, 154 (Pa. Super. 2004).

2015See Commonwealth v. Tirado, 870 A.2d 362, 368 (Pa. Super. 2005); Commonwealth v. Boyer, 856 A.2d 149, 154 (Pa. Super. 2004), aff'd, 891 A.2d 1265 (Pa. 2006). -8- J-S11009-15 Appellant argues on appeal that the pre-sentence investigation report was defective in that it failed to set forth her life expectancy or the effect incarceration would have on her.

2015See Commonwealth v. Tirado, 870 A.2d 362, 368 (Pa. Super. 2005); Commonwealth v. Boyer, 856 A.2d 149, 154 (Pa. Super. 2004).

2022Further, “[w]here the sentencing judge had the benefit of a [PSI], it will be presumed that he was aware of relevant information regarding [the defendant’s] character and weighed those considerations along with the mitigating statutory factors.” Id. at 849-50 (citation omitted); see also Moury, 992 A.2d at 171 .

2014Appellant also acknowledges that the trial court had the benefit of a pre-sentence investigation report (PSI), and that “where the sentencing court has the benefit of a PSI report, the law presumes that the court was aware of the relevant information regarding [Appellant’s] character and weighed those considerations, along with the mitigating statutory factors.” (Id. at 37); see also Commonwealth v. Moury, 992 A.2d 162, 171 (Pa. Super. 2010).

2025See Commonwealth v. Burns, 765 A.2d 1144, 1151 (Pa. Super. 2000).

2025See Commonwealth v. Burns, 765 A.2d 1144, 1151 (Pa. Super. 2000).

2019“The sentencing judge can satisfy the requirement that reasons for imposing sentence be placed on the record by indicating that he or she has been informed by the pre-sentencing report[,] thus properly considering and weighing all relevant factors.” Commonwealth v. Ventura, 975 A.2d 1128, 1135 (Pa. Super. 2009) (citation omitted).

2019“The sentencing judge can satisfy the requirement that reasons for imposing sentence be placed on the record by indicating that he or she has been informed by the pre- sentencing report[,] thus properly considering and weighing all relevant factors.” Commonwealth v. Ventura, 975 A.2d 1128, 1135 (Pa. Super. 2009) (citation omitted).

2017With respect to Appellant’s assertion that the trial court did not consider mitigating factors, we note that when the sentencing court has the benefit of a pre-sentence report, “it shall be presumed that that sentencing judge was aware of the relevant information regarding the defendant’s - 24 - J-A30034-16 character and weighed those considerations along with the mitigating statutory factors.” Post-Sentence Opinion, 3/3/16 at 22 (quoting Commonwealth v. Bruner, 564 A.2d 1277, 1289 (Pa. Super. 1989) (additional citation omitted)).

2017With respect to Appellant’s assertion that the trial court did not consider mitigating factors, we note that when the sentencing court has the benefit of a pre-sentence report, “it shall be presumed that that sentencing judge was aware of the relevant information regarding the defendant’s - 24 - J-A30034-16 character and weighed those considerations along with the mitigating statutory factors.” Post-Sentence Opinion, 3/3/16 at 22 (quoting Commonwealth v. Bruner, 564 A.2d 1277, 1289 (Pa. Super. 1989) (additional citation omitted)).

2025Here, the trial court explained its sentencing considerations, as follows: “Our Supreme Court has held that where a pre-sentence report exists, we shall ‘presume that the sentencing judge was aware of the relevant information regarding the defendant’s character and weighed those considerations along with the mitigating statutory factors.’” Commonwealth v. Miller, 275 A.3d 530, 534 (Pa. Super. 2022); Commonwealth v. Knox, 165 A.3d 925, 930 (Pa. Super. 2017); Commonwealth v. McKiel, … 629 A.2d 1012, 1013-14 ([Pa. Super.] 1993) (quoting Commonwealth v. Devers, … 546 A.2d 12, 18 ([Pa.] 1988)).

2025Here, the trial court explained its sentencing considerations, as follows: “Our Supreme Court has held that where a pre-sentence report exists, we shall ‘presume that the sentencing judge was aware of the relevant information regarding the defendant’s character and weighed those considerations along with the mitigating statutory factors.’” Commonwealth v. Miller, 275 A.3d 530, 534 (Pa. Super. 2022); Commonwealth v. Knox, 165 A.3d 925, 930 (Pa. Super. 2017); Commonwealth v. McKiel, … 629 A.2d 1012, 1013-14 ([Pa. Super.] 1993) (quoting Commonwealth v. Devers, … 546 A.2d 12, 18 ([Pa.] 1988)).

2025“Having been fully informed by the presentence report, the sentencing court’s discretion should not be disturbed.” [Knox, 165 A.3d at 930 ].

2025Moreover, in imposing a probation revocation sentence, “a sentencing court need not undertake a lengthy discourse for its reasons for imposing a sentence or specifically reference the statutes in question.” Commonwealth v. Pasture, 107 A.3d 21, 28 (Pa. 2014). * In his third issue, Appellant faults the VOP court for failing to set forth its reasons for the sentence as required by 42 Pa.C.S. § 9721(b).

2024See Commonwealth v. Conklin, 275 A.3d 1087, 1098 (Pa. Super. 2022), appeal denied, 285 A.3d 883 (Pa. 2022). “[W]here the sentencing judge had the benefit of a [PSI], it will be presumed that he was aware of relevant information regarding appellant's character and weighed those considerations along with the mitigating statutory factors.” Conte, 198 A.3d at 1177 (internal citation and quotation marks omitted).

2022See Commonwealth v. Fowler, 893 A.2d 758, 766-67 (Pa. Super. 2006) (where a presentencing investigation report has been submitted, “it will be presumed [that the trial judge] was aware of the relevant information regarding the defendant’s character and weighed those considerations along with mitigating statutory factors.”).

2022“It is impermissible for a court to consider factors already included within the sentencing guidelines as the sole reason for increasing or decreasing a sentence to the aggravated or mitigated range.” Commonwealth v. Simpson, 829 A.2d 334, 339 (Pa. Super. 2003) (citation omitted).

2022See Commonwealth v. Hill, 210 A.3d 1104, 1117 (Pa. Super. 2019) (quotation marks and citation omitted).

2021Commonwealth v. Lekka, 210 A.3d 343, 350 (Pa. Super. 2019) (citation omitted). [W]here the sentencing judge had the benefit of a presentence report, it will be presumed that he was aware of relevant information regarding appellant's character and weighed those considerations along with the mitigating statutory factors.

2020Commonwealth v. Cruz-Centeno, 668 A.2d 536, 545 (Pa. Super. 1995) (quoting Commonwealth v. Devers, 546 A.2d at 18 ; Commonwealth v. Sanders, 627 A.2d 183, 188 (Pa. Super. 1993).

2019Com. v. Cruz-Centeno, 668 A.2d 536, 545 (Pa.Super. 1995)(quoting Com. v. Devers, 546 A.2d 12 , 18 {1988); Com. v. Sanders, 621 A.2d 183, 188 (Pa.Super. 1993).

2018See also Commonwealth v. Fullin, 892 A.2d 843, 849-50 (Pa. Super. 2006) (“ ‘Where the sentencing judge had the benefit of the pre- sentence report, it will be presumed that he was aware of relevant information regarding the appellant’s character and weighed those considerations along with the mitigating statutory factors.’ ”) quoting Commonwealth v. L.N, 787 A.2d 1064, 1072 (Pa. Super. 2001) citing Commonwealth v. Devers, 519 Pa. 88 , 101- 02, 546 A.2d 12, 18 (1988); and Commonwealth v. Pennington, 751 A.2d 212, 217 (Pa. Super. 2000) quoting Commonwealth v. Devers supra 519 Pa. at 101-02 , 546

2018See also Commonwealth v. Pullin, 892 A.2d 843, 849-50 (Pa.Super. 2006) (" 'Where the sentencing judge had the benefit of the pre-sentence report, it will be presumed that he was aware of relevant information regarding the appellant's character and weighed those considerations along with the mitigating statutory factors.' ") quoting Commonwealth v. L.N, 787 A.2d 1064, 1072 (Pa.Super. 2001) citing Commonwealth v. Devers, 519 Pa. 88, 101-02 , 546 A.2d 12, 18 (1988); and Commonwealth v. Pennington, 751 A.2d 212, 217 (Pa.Super. 2000) quoting Commonwealth v. Devers supra 519 Pa. at 101-02 , 546 A.2d