excessive sentence claim in Pennsylvania

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- J-A07045-26 Super. 2005) (applying Commonwealth v. Mouzon, 812 A.2d 617, 627 (Pa. 2002)).

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)).

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 - J-S45021-25 Knox, 165 A.3d at 929-30 .

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. Caldwell, 117 A.3d 763, 770 (Pa. Super. 2015) (en banc) (finding a claim that the trial court imposed an excessive sentence without properly considering the defendant’s rehabilitative needs presents a substantial question). - 12 - J-S03026-26 Turning to address the merits of Burks’ argument, our standard of review is well established: Impo

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).

2026However, we have concluded that a defendant raised a substantial question where he averred “that the imposition of consecutive sentences violated the express provisions of the Sentencing Code and that the aggregate sentence of sixty years’ incarceration [was] contrary to the fundamental norms which underlie the sentencing process.” Id. (citation omitted); see also Commonwealth v. Swope, 123 A.3d 333, 340 (Pa. Super. 2015) (“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.

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).

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- J-A07045-26 Super. 2005) (applying Commonwealth v. Mouzon, 812 A.2d 617, 627 (Pa. 2002)).

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 -6- J-A06010-26 needs and mitigating factors upon fashioning its sentence, presents a substantial question”).2 We have explained: sentencing is vested in the discretion of the

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- J-S15003-26 needs and mitigating factors upon fashioning its sentence, presents a substantial question”).3 We have explained: sentencing is vested in the discretion of the

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).

2023See Commonwealth v. Hill, -5- J-S03042-23 210 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]hi

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.”).

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- J-A07045-26 Super. 2005) (applying Commonwealth v. Mouzon, 812 A.2d 617, 627 (Pa. 2002)).

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)).

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).

2022See Brown, 249 A.3d at 770 (“an excessive sentence claim—in conjunction with an assertion that the [trial] court failed to consider mitigating factors—raises a substantial question.” (citation omitted)); Commonwealth v. Bonner, 135 A.3d 592, 604 (Pa. Super. 2016) (claim that standard range consecutive sentence was excessive and trial court failed to consider rehabilitative needs raises substantial question); Commonwealth v. Downing, 990 A.2d 788, 793 (Pa. Super. 2010) (claim that sentencing court failed to consider rehabilitative needs and the protection of society raises 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

2023See Commonwealth v. Hill, -5- J-S03042-23 210 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]hi

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).

2016Tirado, 870 A.2d at 366 (citing Commonwealth v. Mouzon, ii~ i.i~ 828 A.2d 1126, 1128 (Pa.Super. 2003)).

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

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).

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).

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- J-S02036-25 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 - J-A26019-23 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- J-S22041-24 Commonwealth v. Caldwell, 117 A.3d 763, 7

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).

2025See Perzel, 291 A.3d at 47 ; see also Moury, 992 A.2d at 170 .

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.”).

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).

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).

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- J-S41020-25 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).

2025With respect to our standard of review, we have held that “sentencing is a matter vested in the sound discretion of the sentencing judge, whose judgment will not be disturbed absent an abuse of discretion.” Commonwealth v. Ritchey, 779 A.2d 1183, 1185 (Pa. Super. 2001).

2025With respect to our standard of review, we have held that “sentencing is a matter vested in the sound discretion of the sentencing judge, whose judgment will not be disturbed absent an abuse of discretion.” Commonwealth v. Ritchey, 779 A.2d 1183, 1185 (Pa. Super. -9- J-S04007-25 2001).

2023See Kurtz, 294 A.3d at 535–36 (citing Commonwealth v. Caldwell, 117 A.3d 763, 770 (Pa. Super. 2015) (en banc)) (finding a substantial question for an excessive sentence claim and an assertion that the court did not consider mitigating evidence); accord Dodge, 77 A.3d at 1272 (finding a substantial question for consecutive sentences and - 12 - J-A18040-23 an allegation that the court did not consider the nature of the offenses).3 We therefore turn to the merits.

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).

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 - J-S45021-25 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.”); Knox, 165 A.3d at 929-30 .