recommended standard in Pennsylvania

2026See supra at 2-3, n.2; see also Commonwealth v. Moury, 992 A.2d 162, 171 (Pa. Super. 2010) (“[W]here a sentence is within the standard range of the guidelines, Pennsylvania law views the sentence as appropriate under the Sentencing Code.”) (citation omitted). reconsideration of sentence.

2025As such, a sentencing court shall be deemed to have abused its discretion “only if -7- application of the guidelines is clearly unreasonable.” Commonwealth v. Macias, 968 A.2d 773, 777 (Pa. Super. 2009).

2025Appellant’s minimum sentence of eleven months is within the recommended standard range. “[W]here a sentence is within the standard range of the guidelines, Pennsylvania law views the sentence as appropriate under the Sentencing Code.” Commonwealth v. Griffin, 65 A.3d 932, 937 (Pa. Super. 2013).

2022If on the other hand, you think there is a real possibility that he is not guilty, you must give him the benefit of the doubt and find him not guilty.50 48 See Hernandez, 176 F.3d at 728 . 49 See Pa.SSJI (Crim) 7.01. 50 Victor v. Nebraska, 511 U.S. at 27 (Ginsburg, J., concurring) (citation omitted). [J-17-2022] - 23 As stated, another example of an objective reasonable doubt instruction, one that “has not been successfully attacked on due process grounds[,]” Pa.SSJI (Crim) 7.01, note, is the primary recommended instruction found in the Pennsylvania Standard Suggested Jury Instruction Manual.

2016(Id. at 8.) Where the trial court has the benefit of a PSI report, as is the case here, “the presumption will stand that the sentencing judge was both aware of and appropriately weighed all relevant information contained therein.” Commonwealth v. Griffin, 804 A.2d 1, 8 (Pa.Super. 2002), appeal denied, 868 A.2d 1198 (Pa. 2005), cert. denied, 545 U.S. 1148 (2005) (citation omitted).

2016In each case, “good cause” must be “so interpreted that the fundamental purpose of the [Law] shall not be destroyed.” Id.

2016The claimant may complete and submit the recommended waiver request form available on the Department’s web site or submit a written request that contains the same information that would be required to complete the recommended form. 34 Pa. Code §65.11 (f)(6) (emphasis added). 6 The Law does not define “good cause,” and our Supreme Court has established that it “must be determined in each case from the facts of that case.” Barclay White Co. v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 50 A.2d 336, 340 (Pa. 1947).

2002Legislative history also indicates that the Guidelines were enacted "to make criminal sentences more rational and consistent, to eliminate unwarranted disparity in sentencing, and to restrict the unfettered discretion we give to sentencing judges." Commonwealth v. Gause, 442 Pa.Super. 329 , 659 A.2d 1014, 1016 (1995) (quoting Pennsylvania House Journal, 3130 (September 21, 1978)) (emphasis added in cited text). [3] Essentially, the Guidelines set forth a recommended standard range ("standard range") in which any given defendant's sentence should fall, based on the gravity of the defendant's of

2002Legislative history also indicates that the Guidelines were enacted "to make criminal sentences more rational and consistent, to eliminate unwarranted disparity in sentencing, and to restrict the unfettered discretion we give to sentencing judges." Commonwealth v. Gause, 442 Pa.Super. 329 , 659 A.2d 1014, 1016 (1995) (quoting Pennsylvania House Journal, 3130 (September 21, 1978)) (emphasis added in cited text). [3] Essentially, the Guidelines set forth a recommended standard range ("standard range") in which any given defendant's sentence should fall, based on the gravity of the defendant's of

1985Commonwealth v. Donough, 377 Pa. 46 , 103 A.2d 694 (1954); see also Commonwealth v. Young, 456 Pa. 102 , 317 A.2d 258 (1974); Commonwealth v. Boone, 287 Pa.Super. 1 , 429 A.2d 689 (1981) (“A doubt that will restrain a reasonable person *347 from acting” would be a proper instruction); Pennsylvania Suggested Standard Jury Instructions (Criminal) 7.01.

1985Commonwealth v. Donough, 377 Pa. 46 , 103 A.2d 694 (1954); see also Commonwealth v. Young, 456 Pa. 102 , 317 A.2d 258 (1974); Commonwealth v. Boone, 287 Pa.Super. 1 , 429 A.2d 689 (1981) (“A doubt that will restrain a reasonable person *347 from acting” would be a proper instruction); Pennsylvania Suggested Standard Jury Instructions (Criminal) 7.01.