four part analysis in Pennsylvania

2024Prior to reaching the merits of a discretionary sentencing issue: [W]e conduct a four part analysis to determine: (1) whether appellant has filed a timely notice of appeal, see Pa.R.A.P. 902 and 903; (2) whether the issue was properly preserved at sentencing or in a motion to reconsider and modify sentence, see Pa.R.Crim.P. [720]; (3) whether appellant’s brief has a fatal defect, Pa.R.A.P. 2119(f); and (4) whether there is a substantial question that the sentence appealed from is not appropriate under the Sentencing Code, 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9781(b). - 12 - J-A12021-24 Commonwealth v. Evans, 901 A.

2021Prior to reaching the merits of a discretionary sentencing issue: We conduct a four part analysis to determine: (1) whether appellant has filed a timely notice of appeal, see Pa.R.A.P. 902 and 903; (2) whether the issue was properly preserved at sentencing or in a motion to reconsider and modify sentence, see [Pa.R.Crim.P. 720]; (3) whether appellant’s brief has a fatal defect, Pa.R.A.P. 2119(f); and (4) whether there is a substantial question that the sentence appealed from is not appropriate under the Sentencing Code, 42 Pa.C.S.[]. § 9781(b). -4- J-S28030-21 Commonwealth v. Evans, 901 A.2d 5

2022As we observed in Commonwealth v. Moury, 992 A.2d 162 (Pa.Super. 2010): An appellant challenging the discretionary aspects of his sentence must invoke this Court’s jurisdiction by satisfying a four- part test: We conduct a four-part analysis to determine: (1) whether [the] appellant has filed a timely notice of appeal, see Pa.R.A.P. 902 and 903; (2) whether the issue was properly preserved at sentencing or in a motion to consider and modify sentence, see Pa.R.Crim.P. 720; (3) whether [the] appellant’s brief has a fatal defect, Pa.R.A.P. 2119(f); and (4) whether there is a substantial question

2021As we observed in Commonwealth v. Moury, 992 A.2d 162 (Pa. Super. 2010): An appellant challenging the discretionary aspects of his sentence must invoke this Court’s jurisdiction by satisfying a four- part test: [W]e conduct a four-part analysis to determine: (1) whether appellant has filed a timely notice of appeal, see Pa.R.A.P. 902 and 903; (2) whether the issue was properly preserved at sentencing or in a motion to reconsider and modify sentence, see Pa.R.Crim.P. [720]; (3) whether appellant’s brief has a fatal defect, Pa.R.A.P. 2119(f); and (4) whether there is a substantial question that

2017Before we review such a claim on the merits, we engage in a four part analysis to determine: (1) whether the appeal is timely; (2) whether Appellant preserved his issue; (3) whether Appellant’s brief includes a concise statement of the reasons relied upon for allowance of appeal with respect to the discretionary aspects of sentence [see Pa.R.A.P. 2119(f)]; and (4) whether the concise statement raises a substantial question that the sentence is appropriate under the sentencing code. [[Image here]] Id. (citation omitted).

2017Before [this Court may] reach the merits of [a challenge to the discretionary aspects of a sentence], we must engage in a four part analysis to determine: (1) whether the appeal is timely [filed]; (2) whether Appellant preserved his issue; (3) whether Appellant’s brief includes a concise statement of the reasons relied upon for allowance of appeal with respect to the discretionary aspects of sentence; and (4) whether the concise statement raises a substantial question that the sentence is appropriate under the sentencing code.... [I]f the appeal satisfies each of these four requirements, we wi

2023Prior to reaching the merits of a discretionary sentencing issue[, w]e conduct a four- part analysis to determine: (1) whether appellant has filed a timely notice of appeal, see Pa.R.A.P. 902 and 903; (2) whether the issue was properly preserved at sentencing or in a motion to reconsider and modify sentence, see Pa.R.Crim.P. 720; (3) whether appellant's brief has a fatal defect, Pa.R.A.P. 2119(f); and (4) whether there is a substantial question that the sentence appealed from is not appropriate under the Sentencing Code, 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9781(b). -3- J-A03012-23 Commonwealth v. Manivannan, 186 A

2023Prior to reaching the merits of a discretionary sentencing issue[, w]e conduct a four- part analysis to determine: (1) whether appellant has filed a timely notice of appeal, see Pa.R.A.P. 902 and 903; (2) whether the issue was properly preserved at sentencing or in a motion to reconsider and modify sentence, see Pa.R.Crim.P. 720; (3) whether appellant's brief has a fatal defect, Pa.R.A.P. 2119(f); and (4) whether there is a substantial question that the sentence appealed from is not appropriate under the Sentencing Code, 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9781(b). - 16 - J-S41045-22 Commonwealth v. Manivannan, 18

2026Commonwealth v. Evans, 901 A.2d 528, 533 (Pa.Super. 2006), appeal denied, 589 Pa. 727 , 909 A.2d 303 (2006) (quoting Commonwealth v. Hyland, 875 A.2d 1175, 1183 (Pa.Super. 2005)).

2019Prior to reaching the merits of a discretionary sentencing issue: [W]e conduct a four part analysis to determine: (1) whether appellant has filed a timely notice of appeal, see Pa.R.A.P. 902 and 903; (2) whether the issue was properly preserved at sentencing or in a motion to reconsider and modify sentence, see Pa.R.Crim.P. 1410 [now Rule 720]; (3) whether appellant's brief has a fatal defect, Pa.R.A.P. 2119(f); and (4) whether there is a -5- J-S61022-19 substantial question that the sentence appealed from is not appropriate under the Sentencing Code, 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9781(b). [Commonwealth v. H

2017Commonwealth v. Edwards, 71 A.3d 323, 329-30 (Pa. Super. 2013), appeal denied, 81 A.3d 75 (Pa. 2013) (citation omitted).

2014Commonwealth v. Edwards, 71 A.3d 323, 329 (Pa. Super. 2013) (citation omitted), appeal denied, 81 A.3d 75 (Pa a sentence must be considered a petition for permission to appeal, as the Commonwealth v. Ahmad, 961 A.2d 884, 886 (Pa. Super. 2008). [Therefore, b]efore we reach the merits of this [issue], we must engage in a four part analysis to determine: (1) whether the appeal is timely; (2) whether Appellant preserved his issue; (3) whether reasons relied upon for allowance of appeal with respect to the discretionary aspects of sentence; and (4) whether the concise statement raises a substantial

2015As we observed in Commonwealth v. Corley, 31 A.3d 293 (Pa. Super. 2011): We held in Commonwealth v. Malovich, 903 A.2d 1247, 1250 (Pa. Super. 2006), that before we reach the merits of such a claim, we must engage in a four part analysis to determine: (1) whether the appeal is timely; (2) whether Appellant preserved his issues; (3) whether Appellant’s brief includes a concise statement of the reasons relied upon for allowance of appeal with respect to the discretionary aspects of sentence; and (4) whether the concise statement raises a substantial question that the sentence is inappropriate und

2015As we observed in Commonwealth v. Corley, 31 A.3d 293 (Pa. Super. 2011): We held in Commonwealth v. Malovich, 903 A.2d 1247, 1250 (Pa. Super. 2006), that before we reach the merits of such a claim, we must engage in a four part analysis to determine: (1) whether the appeal is timely; (2) whether Appellant preserved his issues; (3) whether Appellant’s brief includes a concise statement of the reasons relied upon for allowance of appeal with respect to the discretionary aspects of sentence; and (4) whether the concise statement raises a substantial question that the sentence is inappropriate und

2023Commonwealth v. Martin, 611 A.2d 731, 735 (Pa. Super. 1992) (most internal citations omitted).

2019Prior to reaching the merits of a discretionary sentencing issue: [W]e conduct a four part analysis to determine: (1) whether appellant has filed a timely notice of appeal, see Pa.R.A.P. 902 and 903; (2) whether the issue was properly preserved at sentencing or in a motion to reconsider and modify sentence, see Pa.R.Crim.P. 1410 [now Rule 720]; (3) whether appellant's brief has a fatal defect, Pa.R.A.P. 2119(f); and (4) whether there is a -5- J-S61022-19 substantial question that the sentence appealed from is not appropriate under the Sentencing Code, 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9781(b). [Commonwealth v. H

2017Commonwealth v. Clarke, 70 A.3d 1281, 1286 (Pa. Super. 2013) (citing Commonwealth v. Malovich, 903 A.2d 1247 , 1250 Pa. Super. 2006)). *** The determination of what constitutes a substantial question must be evaluated on a case-by-case basis.

2016Johnson, 125 A.3d at 825–826 (quoting Commonwealth v. Clarke, 70 A.3d 1281, 1286 (Pa. Super. 2013) (citation omitted)).

2023Commonwealth v. Colon, 102 A.3d 1033 , 1042–43 (Pa. Super. 2014) (quoting Austin, 66 A.3d at 808 ).

2023Commonwealth v. Colon, 102 A.3d 1033 , 1042–43 (Pa. Super. 2014) (quoting Austin, 66 A.3d at 808 ).

2019Commonwealth v. Foust, 180 A.3d 416, 439 (Pa. Super. 2018) (cleaned up).

2019Commonwealth v. Foust, 180 A.3d 416, 439 (Pa. Super. 2018) (cleaned up).

2018Commonwealth v. Machicote , 172 A.3d 595 , 602 (Pa. Super. 2017) (citation omitted).

2018As this Court has explained, in order to reach the merits of a discretionary aspects claim, we must engage in a four part analysis to determine: (1) whether the appeal is timely; (2) whether Appellant preserved his [or her] issue; (3) whether Appellant’s brief includes a concise statement of the reasons relied upon for allowance of appeal with respect to the discretionary aspects of sentence; and (4) whether the concise statement raises a substantial question that the sentence is appropriate under the [S]entencing [C]ode. ____________________________________________ 7 Appellant did not file a

2023Commonwealth v. Colon, 102 A.3d 1033 , 1042–43 (Pa. Super. 2014) (quoting Austin, 66 A.3d at 808 ).

2023Commonwealth v. Colon, 102 A.3d 1033 , 1042–43 (Pa. Super. 2014) (quoting Austin, 66 A.3d at 808 ).

2023A challenge to the discretionary aspects of a sentence is not appealable as of right, and is more properly considered a request for permission to appeal: Before [this Court may] reach the merits of [a challenge to the discretionary aspects of a sentence], we must engage in a four part analysis to determine: (1) whether the appeal is timely; (2) whether Appellant preserved his issue; (3) whether Appellant’s brief includes a concise statement of the reasons relied upon for allowance of appeal with respect to the discretionary aspects of sentence [see Pa.R.A.P. 2119(f)]; and (4) whether the conci

2023Antidormi, 84 A.3d at 759 (citation omitted) (brackets in original).

2022Before [this Court may] reach the merits of [a challenge to the discretionary aspects of a sentence], we must engage in a four part analysis to determine: (1) whether the appeal is timely; (2) whether Appellant preserved his issue; (3) whether Appellant’s brief includes a concise statement of the reasons relied upon for allowance of appeal with respect to the discretionary aspects of sentence [see Pa.R.A.P. 2119(f)]; and (4) whether the concise statement raises a substantial question that the sentence is appropriate under the sentencing code. ... -6- J-S21041-22 Commonwealth v. Giordano, 121 A

2020Commonwealth v. Giordano, 121 A.3d 998, 1007-08 (Pa. Super. 2015), appeal denied, 131 A.3d 490 (Pa. 2016) (citation omitted; brackets in original).

2021Because “there is no absolute right to appeal when challenging the discretionary aspect of a sentence,” Commonwealth v. Dodge, 77 A.3d 1263, 1268 (Pa. Super. 2013), an appellant challenging the discretionary aspects of a sentence must invoke this Court’s jurisdiction by satisfying a four- part test.

2021Because “there is no absolute right to appeal when challenging the discretionary aspect of a sentence,” Commonwealth v. Dodge, 77 A.3d 1263, 1268 (Pa. Super. 2013), an appellant challenging the discretionary aspects of a sentence must invoke this Court’s jurisdiction by satisfying a four- part test.

2019Id. at 1042-43 , quoting Commonwealth v. Austin, 66 A.3d 798, 808 (Pa. Super. 2013); see also Commonwealth v. Kalichak, 943 A.2d 285, 289 (Pa. Super. 2008) (“[W]hen a court revokes probation and imposes a new sentence, a criminal defendant needs to preserve challenges to the discretionary aspects of that new sentence either by objecting during the revocation sentencing or by filing a post-sentence motion.”).

2019Id. at 1042-43 , quoting Commonwealth v. Austin, 66 A.3d 798, 808 (Pa. Super. 2013); see also Commonwealth v. Kalichak, 943 A.2d 285, 289 (Pa. Super. 2008) (“[W]hen a court revokes probation and imposes a new sentence, a criminal defendant needs to preserve challenges to the discretionary aspects of that new sentence either by objecting during the revocation sentencing or by filing a post-sentence motion.”).

2019See id.

2017Commonwealth v. Zirkle, 107 A.3d 127, 132 (Pa. Super. 2014), citing Commonwealth v. Buterbaugh, 91 A.3d 1247, 1265-66 (Pa. Super. 2014).

2017As this Court has explained, in order to reach the merits of a discretionary aspects claim, [w]e conduct a four part analysis to determine: (1) whether [the] appellant has filed a timely notice of appeal; (2) whether the issue was properly preserved at sentencing or in a motion to reconsider and modify sentence; (3) whether [the] appellant’s brief has a fatal defect; and (4) whether there is a substantial question that the sentence appealed from is not appropriate under the Sentencing Code. 12 Appellant does not challenge the discretionary aspects of his tampering with public records or making

2017Commonwealth v. Popielarcheck, 151 A.3d 1088, 1093 (Pa. Super. 2016) (citation omitted).

2023The four part test required consideration of the '[l]ength of delay, the reason for the delay, the defendant's assertion of his right, and prejudice to the defendant.' Barker, 407 U.S. at 530 , 92 S.Ct. $.Ct. 2182." Id. at 700-01. "[O]nly "[Only periods of delay caused by the defendant shall be excluded from the computation of the length of time of any pretrial incarceration.

2018In Dallenbach, this Court applied the four- part test enunciated in the United States Supreme Court’s decision, Barker v. Wingo, 407 U.S. 514, 530-33 (1972), to determine whether the delay violated a juvenile’s speedy trial rights.

2023Commonwealth v. White, 193 A.3d 977, 982 (Pa. Super. 2018) (quoting Commonwealth v. Disalvo, 70 A.3d 900, 902 (Pa. Super. 2013)).

2023Commonwealth v. White, 193 A.3d 977, 982 (Pa. Super. 2018) (quoting Commonwealth v. Disalvo, 70 A.3d 900, 902 (Pa. Super. 2013)).

2024Commonwealth v. Swope, 123 A.3d 333, 337 (Pa. Super. 2015) (case citation and brackets omitted).

2024Id. (citation and brackets omitted).

2019Id. (footnotes and citation omitted).

2015However, “[t]he right to appeal the discretionary aspects of a sentence is not absolute.” Commonwealth v. Dunphy, 20 A.3d 1215, 1220 (Pa. Super. 2011) (citation omitted). -9- J-S62008-15 Before we reach the merits of this [issue], we must engage in a four part analysis to determine: (1) whether the appeal is timely; (2) whether Appellant preserved his issue; (3) whether Appellant’s brief includes a concise statement of the reasons relied upon for allowance of appeal with respect to the discretionary aspects of sentence [, see Pa.R.A.P. 2119(f)]; and (4) whether the concise statement raises a s

2017Id. at 825-26 (case citation omitted).

2016Id. at 825-26 .

2023Commonwealth v. Bankes, 286 A.3d 1302, 1306 (Pa. Super. 2022) (citation omitted).

2023Id. (citation omitted).

2023Id. (citation omitted).

2022Commonwealth v. Caldwell, 117 A.3d 763, 768 (Pa. Super. 2015) (citation omitted). - 20 - J-S18045-22 Here, a review of the record reveals Appellant properly preserved her discretionary aspects of sentencing issue by including it in her January 10, 2022, post-sentence motion, filing a timely notice of appeal, and including a Pa.R.A.P. 2119(f) statement in her brief.