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.
11 Pennsylvania opinions name it 1 courts 2018–2026 7 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. Corleygreen2 sentences2026See Commonwealth v. Corley, 31 A.3d 293, 296 (Pa. Super. 2011) (citation omitted). 2022See Commonwealth v. Corley, 31 A.3d 293, 296 (Pa. Super. 2011) (citation omitted). | 7 | 7 |
Commonwealth v. Tobingreen2 sentences2022See Commonwealth v. Tobin, 89 A.3d 663, 667-69 (Pa. Super. 2014) (holding that the assertion that a sentencing court improperly considered nolle prossed charges constitutes a discretionary sentence claim). 2022See Commonwealth v. Tobin, 89 A.3d 663, 667-69 (Pa. Super. 2014) (holding that the assertion that a sentencing court improperly considered nolle prossed charges constitutes a discretionary sentence claim). | 2 | 2 |
Com. v. Clary, T.green1 sentence2024See Clary, 226 A.3d at 580 ; accord Commonwealth v. Faison, 297 A.3d 810, 836 (Pa. Super. 2023) (concluding the appellant failed to raise a substantial question where he did not “specify what factors in particular the [sentencing] court ignored, or why his circumstances justified the imposition of a concurrent sentence”).4 This Court will not accept a bald statement of sentencing errors ____________________________________________ 4 Additionally, Kendall’s 2119(f) statement does not include the claims he asserts in his argument: that the trial court failed to weigh mitigating circumstances or | 1 | 1 |
Com. v. Faison, W.green1 sentence2024See Clary, 226 A.3d at 580 ; accord Commonwealth v. Faison, 297 A.3d 810, 836 (Pa. Super. 2023) (concluding the appellant failed to raise a substantial question where he did not “specify what factors in particular the [sentencing] court ignored, or why his circumstances justified the imposition of a concurrent sentence”).4 This Court will not accept a bald statement of sentencing errors ____________________________________________ 4 Additionally, Kendall’s 2119(f) statement does not include the claims he asserts in his argument: that the trial court failed to weigh mitigating circumstances or | 1 | 1 |
Commonwealth v. Mourygreen1 sentence2018Commonwealth v. Mourey, 992 A.2d 162, 170 (Pa. Super. 2010). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Pennsylvania. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
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.