excessive sentence claim in Pennsylvania

2026See Commonwealth v. Raven, 97 A.3d 1244, 1253 (Pa. Super. 2015) (holding that “[t]his Court has held that an excessive sentence claim—in conjunction with an assertion that the court failed to consider mitigating factors—raises a substantial question” (citation omitted)).

2026See Commonwealth v. Raven, 97 A.3d 1244, 1253 (Pa. Super. 2014) (holding that “this Court has held that an excessive sentence claim—in conjunction with an assertion that the court failed to consider mitigating factors—raises a substantial question” (citation omitted)).

2026As we have repeatedly held, “a claim of inadequate consideration of mitigating factors does not raise a substantial question[.]” Commonwealth v. -7- Patterson, 180 A.3d 1217, 1233 (Pa. Super. 2018) (citation omitted).7 Similarly, in the absence of an excessive sentence claim, “a claim that the trial court failed to consider an appellant’s rehabilitative needs fails to raise a substantial question.” Commonwealth v. Caldwell, 117 A.3d 763, 769 (Pa. Super. 2015) (citation omitted).8 More broadly, “we have held that a claim that a court did not weigh the factors as an appellant wishes does not rai

2026See Commonwealth v. Eby, 784 A.2d 204, 206 (Pa. Super. 1999) (explaining a claim the trial court imposed an unreasonable sentence by sentencing outside of the guidelines range presents a substantial question); Commonwealth v. Caldwell, 117 A.3d 763, 770 (Pa. Super. 2015) (en banc) (explaining an excessive sentence claim, combined with an assertion the court failed to consider mitigating factors, raises a substantial question).

2026See Commonwealth v. Swope, 123 A.3d 333, 339 (Pa. Super. 2015) (stating that “an excessive sentence claim— in conjunction with an assertion that the court failed to consider mitigating factors—raises a substantial question”) (citation omitted); Commonwealth v. Perry, 883 A.2d 599, 602 (Pa. Super. 2005) (holding that appellant raised a substantial question by arguing that the trial court’s sole focus on the seriousness of his offense was contrary to the fundamental norms of the sentencing process).

2026See Commonwealth v. Johnson, 125 A.3d 822, 826 (Pa. Super. 2015) (“an excessive sentence claim – in conjunction with an assertion that the court failed to consider mitigating factors – raises a substantial question”); Commonwealth v. Swope, 123 A.3d 333, 340 (Pa. Super. 2015) (holding: a claim that the appellant’s sentence was unduly excessive, “together with his claim that the court failed to consider his rehabilitative -6- needs and mitigating factors upon fashioning its sentence, presents a substantial question”).2 We have explained: sentencing is vested in the discretion of the trial court

2026See Perry, supra (concluding that an excessive sentence claim, in conjunction with an assertion that the court did not consider mitigating factors, raised a substantial question).

2026See Commonwealth v. Swope, 123 A.3d 333, 339 (Pa. Super. 2015) (stating that “an excessive sentence claim— in conjunction with an assertion that the court failed to consider mitigating factors—raises a substantial question”) (citation omitted); Commonwealth v. Perry, 883 A.2d 599, 602 (Pa. Super. 2005) (holding that appellant raised a substantial question by arguing that the trial court’s sole focus on the seriousness of his offense was contrary to the fundamental norms of the sentencing process).

2026See Commonwealth v. Raven, 97 A.3d 1244, 1253 (Pa. Super. 2014) (holding that “an excessive sentence claim—in conjunction with an assertion that the court failed to consider mitigating factors—raises a substantial question”); Commonwealth v. Dodge, 77 A.3d 1263, 1273 (Pa. Super. 2013) (determining that the appellant’s claim that the sentencing court “disregarded rehabilitation and the nature and circumstances of the offense in handing down its sentence” presented a substantial question).

2025See Commonwealth v. Dodge, 77 A.3d 1263, 1273 (Pa. Super. 2013) (“[a]ppellant’s claim that the sentencing court disregarded rehabilitation and the nature and circumstances of the offense in handing down its sentence presents a substantial question for our review”); Commonwealth v. Johnson, 125 A.3d 822, 826 (Pa. Super. 2015) (“an excessive sentence claim – in conjunction with an assertion that the court failed to consider mitigating factors – raises a substantial question”); Commonwealth v. Swope, 123 A.3d 333, 340 (Pa. Super. 2015) (holding: a claim that the appellant’s sentence was unduly ex

2026See Commonwealth v. Johnson, 125 A.3d 822, 826 (Pa. Super. 2015) (“an excessive sentence claim – in conjunction with an assertion that the court failed to consider mitigating factors – raises a substantial question”); Commonwealth v. Swope, 123 A.3d 333, 340 (Pa. Super. 2015) (holding: a claim that the appellant’s sentence was unduly excessive, “together with his claim that the court failed to consider his rehabilitative -7- needs and mitigating factors upon fashioning its sentence, presents a substantial question”).3 We have explained: sentencing is vested in the discretion of the trial court

2026See Commonwealth v. Johnson, 125 A.3d 822, 826 (Pa. Super. 2015) (“an excessive sentence claim – in conjunction with an assertion that the court failed to consider mitigating factors – raises a substantial question”); Commonwealth v. Swope, 123 A.3d 333, 340 (Pa. Super. 2015) (holding: a claim that the appellant’s sentence was unduly excessive, “together with his claim that the court failed to consider his rehabilitative -6- needs and mitigating factors upon fashioning its sentence, presents a substantial question”).2 We have explained: sentencing is vested in the discretion of the trial court

2026See Commonwealth v. Gonzalez–Dejusus, 994 A.2d 595, 597-98 (Pa. Super. 2010) (explaining that a claim that the trial court erred in imposing consecutive sentences is a challenge to the discretionary aspects of a sentence); Commonwealth v. Lee, 876 A.2d 408, 411 (Pa. Super. 2005) (stating that claim that the trial court erred in imposing an excessive sentence is a challenge to the discretionary aspects of a sentence).

2025See Commonwealth v. Lee, 876 A.2d 408 (Pa. Super. 2005) (claim that the trial court erred in imposing an excessive sentence is a challenge to the discretionary aspects of a sentence).

2015Essentially, this is a claim that his sentence is excessive and that the trial court erred by not considering mitigating factors. “[T]his Court has held that an excessive sentence claim— in conjunction with an assertion that the court failed to consider mitigating factors—raises a substantial question.” Samuel, 102 A.3d at 1007 (citing Commonwealth v. Raven, 97 A.3d 1244, 1253 (Pa. Super. 2014)).

2015Consequently, we review Terantino’s judgment of sentence to determine whether it presents a substantial question regarding excessiveness, and, if so, whether any such argument warrants the preparation of an advocate’s brief by appointed counsel or vacatur of the sentence. “[T]his Court has held that an excessive sentence claim—in conjunction with an assertion that the court failed to consider mitigating factors—raises a substantial question.” Commonwealth v. Samuel, 102 A.3d 1001, 1007 (Pa. Super. 2014).

2023Commonwealth v. Caldwell, 117 A.3d 763, 770 (Pa. Super. 2015) (en banc) (“an excessive sentence claim—in conjunction with an assertion that the [trial] court failed to consider mitigating factors—raises a substantial question.”); Commonwealth v. Bonner, 135 A.3d 592, 604 (Pa. Super. 2016) (same); cf. Commonwealth v. Dodge, 77 A.3d 1263, 1270 (Pa. Super. 2013) (“a bald claim of excessiveness due to the consecutive nature of a sentence will not raise a substantial question.”).

2023See Commonwealth v. Hill, 210 A.3d 1104, 1116 (Pa. Super. 2019) (finding a substantial question where the appellant averred that the trial court failed to consider certain sentencing factors in conjunction with an assertion that the sentence imposed was excessive); see also Commonwealth v. Bonner, 135 A.3d 592, 604 (Pa. Super. 2016) (holding that a claim that a standard range consecutive sentence was excessive and the trial court failed to consider rehabilitative needs raises substantial a question); Commonwealth v. Raven, 97 A.3d 1244, 1253 (Pa. Super. 2015) (observing that “[t]his Court has

2026Id. at 15-16. “[T]his Court has held that an excessive sentence claim—in conjunction with an assertion that the court failed to consider mitigating factors—raises a substantial question.” Commonwealth v. Raven, 97 A.3d 1244, 1253 (Pa. Super. 2014) (citing Commonwealth v. Perry, 883 A.2d 599, 602 (Pa. Super. 2005) (applying Commonwealth v. Mouzon, 812 A.2d 617, 627 (Pa. 2002)).

2026Through this statement, Appellant has raised both an excessive sentence claim as well as a claim the trial court failed to consider a mitigating factor. “[T]his Court has held that an excessive sentence claim—in conjunction with an assertion that the court failed to consider mitigating factors—raises a substantial question.” Commonwealth v. Raven, 97 A.3d 1244, 1253 (Pa. Super. 2014) (citing Commonwealth v. Perry, 883 A.2d 599, 602 (Pa. -6- Super. 2005) (applying Commonwealth v. Mouzon, 812 A.2d 617, 627 (Pa. 2002)).

2024“This Court has [] held that an excessive sentence claim—in conjunction with an assertion that the [trial] court failed to consider mitigating factors—raises a substantial question.” Commonwealth v. Caldwell, 117 A.3d 763, 770 (Pa. Super. 2015) (en banc) (citing Commonwealth v. Raven, 97 A.3d 1244, 1253 (Pa. Super. 2014)); Commonwealth v. Downing, 990 A.2d 788, 792 (Pa. Super. 2010) (concluding that a claim that trial court relied on improper sentencing factors raises a substantial question).

2018But cf. Commonwealth v. Downing, 990 A.2d 788, 794 (Pa. Super. 2010) (stating that “[t]his Court has held on numerous occasions that a claim of inadequate consideration of mitigating factors does not raise a substantial question for our review.” (citation omitted)). - 12 - J-S45004-18 Sentence Order, 1/8/18, at 31-33.

2023See Commonwealth v. Hill, -5- 210 A.3d 1104, 1116 (Pa. Super. 2019) (finding a substantial question where the appellant averred that the trial court failed to consider certain sentencing factors in conjunction with an assertion that the sentence imposed was excessive); see also Commonwealth v. Bonner, 135 A.3d 592, 604 (Pa. Super. 2016) (holding that a claim that a standard range consecutive sentence was excessive and the trial court failed to consider rehabilitative needs raises substantial question); Commonwealth v. Raven, 97 A.3d 1244, 1253 (Pa. Super. 2015) (holding that “[t]his Court has

2023See Commonwealth v. Hill, 210 A.3d 1104, 1116 (Pa. Super. 2019) (finding a substantial question where the appellant averred that the trial court failed to consider certain sentencing factors in conjunction with an assertion that the sentence imposed was excessive); see also Commonwealth v. Bonner, 135 A.3d 592, 604 (Pa. Super. 2016) (holding that a claim that a standard range consecutive sentence was excessive and the trial court failed to consider rehabilitative needs raises substantial a question); Commonwealth v. Raven, 97 A.3d 1244, 1253 (Pa. Super. 2015) (observing that “[t]his Court has

2026“Applying Mouzon, this Court has held that an excessive sentence claim—in conjunction with an assertion that the court failed to consider mitigating factors—raises a substantial question.” Commonwealth v. Raven, 97 A.3d 1244, 1253 (Pa.Super. 2014), appeal denied, 629 Pa. 636 , 105 A.3d 736 (2014).

2025Dodge, supra at 1273 . -7- This Court has also held that “an excessive sentence claim— in conjunction with an assertion that the court failed to consider mitigating factors—raises a substantial question.” Commonwealth v. Raven, 97 A.3d 1244, 1253 (Pa.Super. 2014), appeal denied, 629 Pa. 636 , 105 A.3d 736 (2014) (quoting Commonwealth v. Perry, 883 A.2d 599, 602 (Pa.Super. 2005)).

2026See Commonwealth v. Gonzalez–Dejusus, 994 A.2d 595, 597-98 (Pa. Super. 2010) (explaining that a claim that the trial court erred in imposing consecutive sentences is a challenge to the discretionary aspects of a sentence); Commonwealth v. Lee, 876 A.2d 408, 411 (Pa. Super. 2005) (stating that claim that the trial court erred in imposing an excessive sentence is a challenge to the discretionary aspects of a sentence).

2025See Commonwealth v. Lee, 876 A.2d 408 (Pa. Super. 2005) (claim that the trial court erred in imposing an excessive sentence is a challenge to the discretionary aspects of a sentence); see also Commonwealth v. Gonzalez–Dejusus, 994 A.2d 595 (Pa. Super. 2010) (claim that the trial court erred in imposing consecutive sentences is a challenge to the discretionary aspects of a sentence).

2025“This Court has . . . held that an excessive sentence claim — in conjunction with an assertion that the court failed to consider mitigating factors — raises a substantial question.” Id. at 983 (citations omitted).

2022Nevertheless, this Court has held that “an excessive sentence claim – in conjunction with an assertion that the court failed to consider mitigating factors – raises a substantial question.” Commonwealth v. White, 193 A.3d 977, 983 (Pa.Super. 2018).

2025See also Commonwealth v. Trimble, 615 A.2d 48 (Pa.Super. 1992) (holding defendant’s claim that court failed to consider factors set forth under Section 9721(b) and focused solely on seriousness of defendant’s offense raised substantial question).

2024See also Commonwealth v. Trimble, 615 A.2d 48 (Pa.Super. 1992) (holding defendant’s claim that court failed to consider factors set forth under Section 9721(b) and focused solely on seriousness of defendant’s offense raised substantial question).

2025See Commonwealth v. Miller, 275 A.3d 530, 535 (Pa. Super. 2022) (stating “an excessive sentence claim—in conjunction with an assertion that the court failed to consider mitigating factors—raises a substantial question”) (citation omitted).

2025See Commonwealth v. Miller, 275 A.3d 530, 535 (Pa. Super. 2022) (stating “an excessive sentence claim—in conjunction with an assertion that the court failed to consider mitigating factors—raises a substantial question”) (citation omitted).

2016See Commonwealth v. Mouzon, 828 A.2d 1126, 1128 (Pa.Super.2003).

2016See Commonwealth v. Mouzon, 828 A.2d 1126, 1128 (Pa.Super.2003).

2026With respect to sentences within the sentencing guidelines, Section 9781(c) instructs that an appellate court ____________________________________________ 7 We recognize, however, that “an excessive sentence claim—in conjunction with an assertion that the court failed to consider mitigating factors—raises a substantial question.” Commonwealth v. Banniger, 303 A.3d 1085, 1096 (Pa. Super. 2023) (citation omitted).

2026See Commonwealth v. Banniger, 303 A.3d 1085, 1096 (Pa. Super. 2023) (concluding that “an excessive sentence claim— in conjunction with an assertion that the court failed to consider mitigating factors—raises a substantial question.”) (citation omitted).

2024While a claim of inadequate consideration of mitigating factors typically does not raise a substantial question for our review, see Commonwealth v. Disalvo, 70 A.3d 900, 903 (Pa. Super. 2013), this Court has held “that an excessive sentence claim—in conjunction with an assertion that the court failed to consider mitigating factors—raises a substantial question.” Commonwealth v. Raven, 97 A.3d 1244, 1253 (Pa. Super. 2014) (citation omitted).

2023This Court, however, has also held that “an excessive sentence claim—in conjunction with an assertion that the court failed to consider mitigating factors—raises a substantial question.” Id., citing Commonwealth v. Raven, 97 A.3d 1244, 1253 (Pa. Super. 2014).

2025Commonwealth v. Snyder, 289 A.3d 1121, 1126 (Pa.Super. 2023) (finding an excessive sentence claim coupled -7- with a claim of disregard for appellant's “rehabilitative potential” raises a substantial question).

2024Commonwealth v. Snyder, 289 A.3d 1121, 1126 (Pa.Super. 2023) (finding an excessive sentence claim coupled with a claim of disregard for appellant's “rehabilitative potential” - 25 - raises a substantial question); Commonwealth v. Crawford, 254 A.3d 769, 782 (Pa.Super. 2021) (stating that a claim that the sentencing court relied on improper factors raises a substantial question).

2024See Commonwealth v. Johnson-Daniels, 167 A.3d 17, 27 (Pa. Super. 2017) (“[The a]ppellant’s assertion in his Rule 2119(f) statement that his aggregate sentence ‘does not comport with the protection of the public, gravity of the offense, and his rehabilitative needs,’ raises a substantial question.”) (citing, inter alia, Commonwealth v. Raven, 97 A.3d 1244, 1253 (Pa. Super. 2014) (holding “an excessive sentence claim – in conjunction with an assertion that the court failed to consider mitigating factors – raises a substantial question.”); -4- Commonwealth v. Caldwell, 117 A.3d 763, 770 (Pa. Supe

2024See Commonwealth v. Johnson-Daniels, 167 A.3d 17, 27 (Pa. Super. 2017) (“[The a]ppellant’s assertion in his Rule 2119(f) statement that his aggregate sentence ‘does not comport with the protection of the public, gravity of the offense, and his rehabilitative needs,’ raises a substantial question.”) (citing, inter alia, Commonwealth v. Caldwell, 117 A.3d 763, 770 (Pa. Super. 2015) (en banc) (concluding “[a]ppellant’s challenge to the imposition of his consecutive sentences as unduly excessive, together with his claim that the court failed to consider his rehabilitative needs upon fashioning its

2023Despite this infirmity, because this Court has held that a failure to consider relevant sentencing criteria, including the rehabilitative needs of a defendant, seemingly at the expense of some other focus or fixation and in tandem with an excessive sentence claim, establishes a substantial question under the Sentencing Code, see, e.g., Commonwealth v. Riggs, 63 A.3d 780, 786 (Pa. Super. 2013), we may reach the merits of his underlying claim.

2022See Caldwell, 117 A.3d at 770 (“an excessive sentence claim—in conjunction with an assertion that the court failed to consider mitigating factors—raises a substantial question.”) (citation omitted); Commonwealth v. Riggs, 63 A.3d 780, 786 (Pa. Super. 2012) (averment that court failed to consider relevant sentencing criteria, including the protection of the public, the gravity of the underlying offense and the rehabilitative needs of the defendant, raised a substantial question).

2020See Commonwealth v. Moury, 992 A.2d 162, 171-72 (Pa. Super. 2010) (“[T]he imposition of consecutive, rather than concurrent, sentences may raise a substantial question . . . where the aggregate sentence is unduly harsh, considering the nature of the crimes and length of imprisonment.”); Commonwealth v. Swope, 123 A.3d 333, 340 (Pa. Super. 2015) (“This Court has also held that an excessive sentence claim—in conjunction with an assertion that the court failed to consider mitigating factors—raises a substantial question.”).

2013But see Johnson, 961 A.2d at 880 (“Appellant’s assertion of abuse of discretion for imposing consecutive sentences without properly considering mitigating factors fails to present a substantial question to justify this Court’s review of his claim.”); Moury, supra at 175 . 8 Recently, in Commonwealth v. Coulverson, 34 A.3d 135 (Pa.Super.2011), in a case involving a rape as well as numerous other sexual assault crimes as well as robbery and burglary, this Court found a ninety-year maximum sentence manifestly excessive.

2023See Commonwealth v. Kurtz, 294 A.3d 509 , 535-36 (Pa. Super. 2023) (finding a substantial question for review where the defendant “pair[ed] an excessive sentence claim with an assertion that the [trial] court failed to consider mitigating evidence” (citation omitted)); see also Commonwealth v. Pacheco, 227 A.3d 358 , 376 (Pa. Super. 2020) (holding that a claim that trial court considered impermissible factor raises a substantial question).

2021Wallace, 244 A.3d at 1278 ; see also Akhmedov, 216 A.3d at 328; but see Commonwealth v. Pacheco, 227 A.3d 358, 375 (Pa. Super. 2020) (“[A]n allegation that a sentencing court failed to consider or did not adequately consider certain mitigating factors does not raise a substantial question that the sentence was inappropriate.”), appeal granted on other grounds, 237 A.3d 396 (Pa. 2020).

2026See Commonwealth v. Eby, 784 A.2d 204, 206 (Pa. Super. 1999) (explaining a claim the trial court imposed an unreasonable sentence by sentencing outside of the guidelines range presents a substantial question); Commonwealth v. Caldwell, 117 A.3d 763, 770 (Pa. Super. 2015) (en banc) (explaining an excessive sentence claim, combined with an assertion the court failed to consider mitigating factors, raises a substantial question).

2024See -8- Commonwealth v. Akhmedov, 216 A.3d 307 , 328 (Pa. Super. 2019) (en banc) (stating that “an excessive sentence claim—in conjunction with an assertion that the court failed to consider mitigating factors—raises a substantial question” (citations omitted)); Commonwealth v. Eby, 784 A.2d 204, 206 (Pa. Super. 1999) (explaining that the courts of this Commonwealth have found that a “claim that the sentencing court imposed an unreasonable sentence by sentencing outside the guideline ranges presents a substantial question for our review” (citations and quotation marks omitted)).

2026See Commonwealth v. Raven, 97 A.3d 1244, 1253 (Pa. Super. 2014) (stating “an excessive sentence claim—in conjunction with an assertion that the court failed to consider mitigating factors—raises a substantial question”); Commonwealth v. Macias, 968 A.2d 773, 776 (Pa. Super. 2009) (explaining that “an averment that the court sentenced based solely on the seriousness of the offense and failed to consider all relevant factors raises a substantial question”).

2026See Commonwealth v. Schroat, 272 A.3d 523, 527 (Pa. Super. 2022) (recognizing substantial question raised where appellant asserted that sentencing court imposed excessive sentence and failed to consider relevant sentencing factors including rehabilitative needs)8; see also Commonwealth v. Watson, 228 A.3d 928, 936 (Pa. Super. 2020) (noting “a claim that the court double-counted factors already considered in the sentencing guidelines raises a substantial question”); Commonwealth v. Raven, 97 A.3d 1244, 1253 (Pa. Super. 2014) (stating “an excessive sentence claim–in conjunction with an assertion

2026See Commonwealth v. Schroat, 272 A.3d 523, 527 (Pa. Super. 2022) (recognizing substantial question raised where appellant asserted that sentencing court imposed excessive sentence and failed to consider relevant sentencing factors including rehabilitative needs)8; see also Commonwealth v. Watson, 228 A.3d 928, 936 (Pa. Super. 2020) (noting “a claim that the court double-counted factors already considered in the sentencing guidelines raises a substantial question”); Commonwealth v. Raven, 97 A.3d 1244, 1253 (Pa. Super. 2014) (stating “an excessive sentence claim–in conjunction with an assertion

2022See, e.g., Commonwealth v. Miller, 275 A.3d 530, 535 (Pa. Super. 2022), citing Commonwealth v. Raven, 97 A.3d 1244, 1253 (Pa. Super. 2014) (holding that “an excessive sentence claim—in conjunction with an assertion that the court failed to consider mitigating factors—raises a substantial question.”); Commonwealth v. Velez, 273 A.3d 6, 9 (Pa. Super. 2022), citing Raven and Commonwealth v. Caldwell, 117 A.3d 763, 770 (Pa. Super. 2015) (en banc) (stating that a claim that a sentence was excessive in light of certain mitigating factors raises a substantial question); compare with Commonwealth v. C

2026See Commonwealth v. Swope 123 A.3d 333, 339 (Pa. Super. 2015) (stating that “an excessive sentence claim – in conjunction with an assertion that the court failed to consider mitigating factors – raises a substantial question”) (citations omitted); see also Commonwealth v. Bankes, 286 A.3d 1302, 1306 (Pa. Super. 2022) (finding that claim that a -4- court imposed an excessive sentence without properly considering the appellant’s rehabilitative needs raises a substantial question).

2025To prevail on an excessive sentence claim, an appellant “must establish, by reference to the record, that 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.” Bankes, 286 A.3d at 1307 (citation omitted).

2026Caldwell, 117 A.3d at 770 (holding that “an excessive sentence claim—in conjunction with an assertion that the [trial] court failed to consider mitigating factors—raises a substantial question.”); Knox, 165 A.3d at 929-30 .

2026Caldwell, 117 A.3d at 770 (holding that “an excessive sentence claim—in conjunction with an assertion that the [trial] court failed to consider mitigating factors—raises a substantial question.”); - 15 - Knox, 165 A.3d at 929-30 .