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.
12 Pennsylvania opinions name it 1 courts 2011–2025 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. Bakergreen2 sentences2023See Commonwealth v. Buterbaugh, 91 A.3d 1247, 1265 (Pa. Super. 2014), appeal denied, 104 A.3d 1 (Pa. 2014); Commonwealth v. Baker, 72 A.3d 652, 662 (Pa. Super. 2013), appeal denied, 86 A.3d 231 (Pa. 2014). 2019See Baker, supra. Here, Lugo has complied with the first three prongs of this test to invoke our jurisdiction. | 2 | 2 |
Commonwealth v. Buterbaughgreen2 sentences2023See Commonwealth v. Buterbaugh, 91 A.3d 1247, 1265 (Pa. Super. 2014), appeal denied, 104 A.3d 1 (Pa. 2014); Commonwealth v. Baker, 72 A.3d 652, 662 (Pa. Super. 2013), appeal denied, 86 A.3d 231 (Pa. 2014). 2017See Commonwealth v. Buterbaugh, 91 A.3d 1247, 1266 (Pa. Super. 2014) (en banc) (addressing claim that DWE did not apply as a discretionary aspect of sentence challenge); Commonwealth v. Williams, 151 A.3d 621, 625 (Pa. Super. 2016) (addressing claims that trial court utilized wrong OGS as a discretionary aspect of sentence challenge). | 2 | 2 |
Com. v. Clary, T.green1 sentence2025See Clary, 226 A.3d at 580 ; Moury, 992 A.2d at 171 . | 1 | 1 |
Commonwealth v. Bullockgreen1 sentence2019See Commonwealth v. Bullock, 948 A.2d 818 (Pa. Super. 2008) (stating that a discretionary aspect of sentence claim is waived if the appellant does not challenge it in post-sentence motions or by raising the claim during the sentencing proceedings).1 ____________________________________________ 1 Additionally, we observe that Appellant did not raise, in her Rule 1925(b) statement, her assertions that the court failed to state adequate reasons for her sentence, and that it relied solely on the probation department’s sentencing recommendation. | 1 | 1 |
Commonwealth v. Messersmithgreen2 sentences2019Commonwealth v. Washington, 2084 EDA 2011, unpublished memorandum at 4-5 (Pa. Super. filed 9/18/12) (citing Commonwealth v. Messersmith, 860 A.2d 1078, 1096 (Pa. Super. 2004)). 2019Commonwealth v. Washington, 2084 EDA 2011, unpublished memorandum at 4-5 (Pa. Super. filed 9/18/12) (citing Commonwealth v. Messersmith, 860 A.2d 1078, 1096 (Pa. Super. 2004)). | 1 | 1 |
Commonwealth v. Caldwellgreen1 sentence2019Commonwealth v. Caldwell, 117 A.3d 763, 768 (Pa. Super. 2015). ____________________________________________ 4Valle did not file a substantive response to counsel’s Anders brief, raising any issues he believed to be meritorious. -3- J-S29024-19 Challenges to the discretionary aspects of one’s sentence are not appealable as of right, and in order for this Court to reach the merits of such claims, Valle first must satisfy a four-part test to determine: (1) whether the appeal is timely; (2) whether [he] preserved his issue; (3) whether [his] brief includes a concise statement of the reasons relied | 1 | 1 |
Commonwealth v. Magnumgreen1 sentence2018Cf. Commonwealth v. Magnum, 654 A.2d 1146, 1148 (Pa. Super. 1995) (noting that a discretionary aspect of sentence claim will be waived where it was not preserved in an objection at sentencing or a timely post-sentence motion). | 1 | 1 |
Commonwealth v. Shugarsgreen1 sentence2018Commonwealth v. Shugars, 895 A.2d 1270, 1274-75 (Pa. Super. 2006). | 1 | 1 |
Commonwealth v. Williamsgreen1 sentence2017See Commonwealth v. Buterbaugh, 91 A.3d 1247, 1266 (Pa. Super. 2014) (en banc) (addressing claim that DWE did not apply as a discretionary aspect of sentence challenge); Commonwealth v. Williams, 151 A.3d 621, 625 (Pa. Super. 2016) (addressing claims that trial court utilized wrong OGS as a discretionary aspect of sentence challenge). | 1 | 1 |
Commonwealth v. Manngreen1 sentence2016See Commonwealth v. Mann, 820 A.2d 788, 793-94 (Pa. Super. 2003), appeal denied, 831 A.2d 599 (Pa. 2003) (finding claim sentencing court did not put sufficient reasons to justify sentence on record waived where issue was not raised in post-sentence motion); see also Pa.R.A.P. 302(a).9 Thus, Appellant waived this discretionary aspect of sentence claim. ____________________________________________ 9 Again, we note that Appellant also waived this claim because he failed to raise it in his Rule 1925(b) statement. | 1 | 1 |
Com. v. Whetzelgreen1 sentence2011See Commonwealth v. Williams, 980 A.2d 667, 672 (Pa.Super.2009), appeal denied, 605 Pa. 700 , 990 A.2d 730 (2010). [7] 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9754(b) (statutory provision permitting court to attach reasonable, specified conditions found in section 9754(c) to a probation order "as it deems necessary to insure or assist the defendant in leading a law-abiding life."). [8] 61 P.S. § 331.27b, which was repealed in October 2009, was in effect at the time that Alexander was sentenced on August 15, 2008. | 1 | 1 |
Commonwealth v. Williamsgreen1 sentence2011See Commonwealth v. Williams, 980 A.2d 667, 672 (Pa.Super.2009), appeal denied, 605 Pa. 700 , 990 A.2d 730 (2010). [7] 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9754(b) (statutory provision permitting court to attach reasonable, specified conditions found in section 9754(c) to a probation order "as it deems necessary to insure or assist the defendant in leading a law-abiding life."). [8] 61 P.S. § 331.27b, which was repealed in October 2009, was in effect at the time that Alexander was sentenced on August 15, 2008. | 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. Moury
green
1 sentence2025See Clary, 226 A.3d at 580 ; Moury, 992 A.2d at 171 . | 1 | 2025–2025 |
Commonwealth v. Conde
green
1 sentence2014Conde, supra. In his final claim on appeal, Johnson raises a discretionary aspect of sentence claim, contending that he is entitled to a remand for resentencing because the trial court’s sentence is unreasonable, excessive and not reflective of his character, history and condition. | 1 | 2014–2014 |
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.