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.
10 Pennsylvania opinions name it 1 courts 2007–2025 4 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. Robinsongreen2 sentences2021Most other challenges implicate the discretionary aspects of a sentence, “even though the claim may involve a legal question, a patently obvious mathematical error, or an issue of constitutional dimension.” Robinson, 931 A.2d at 21 . 2021Most other challenges implicate the discretionary aspects of a sentence, “even though the claim may involve a legal question, a patently obvious mathematical error, or an issue of constitutional dimension.” Robinson, 931 A.2d at 21 (finding that a claim of vindictiveness by the trial court when sentencing a defendant does not implicate the legality of the sentence). | 4 | 5 |
Commonwealth v. Succigreen2 sentences2021Commonwealth v. Succi, 173 A.3d 269, 284-85 (Pa. Super. 2017). 2020Commonwealth v. Succi, 173 A.3d 269, 284-85 (Pa. Super. 2017). - 17 - J-A09033-20 Generally, this Court has held that a challenge to the way that a trial court fashions a condition of probation involves a matter under the trial court’s jurisdiction under the Sentencing Code, 42 Pa.C.S. § 9754(b), and generally constitutes a challenge to the discretionary aspects of a sentence rather than to its legality. | 3 | 3 |
Com. v. Starr, E.green2 sentences2025Commonwealth v. Starr, 234 A.3d 755, 765 (Pa. Super. 2020) (citations and quotation marks omitted). 2021Id. at 765 (citations and quotation marks omitted). | 2 | 2 |
Commonwealth v. Heastergreen1 sentence2018“Most other challenges implicate the discretionary aspect of a sentence, even though the claim may involve a legal question, a patently obvious mathematical error, or an issue of constitutional dimension.” Id; see also Commonwealth v. Heaster, 171 A.3d 268, 272 (Pa. Super. 2017) (challenge to application of deadly weapon enhancement as violative of plea agreement implicated the discretionary aspect of a sentence); Berry, 877 A.2d 479 (finding that claim that trial court violated plea agreement by imposing consecutive sentences and not allowing defendant to withdraw plea implicated discretionar | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Pennsylvania. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Commonwealth v. Berry
green
1 sentence2018“Most other challenges implicate the discretionary aspect of a sentence, even though the claim may involve a legal question, a patently obvious mathematical error, or an issue of constitutional dimension.” Id; see also Commonwealth v. Heaster, 171 A.3d 268, 272 (Pa. Super. 2017) (challenge to application of deadly weapon enhancement as violative of plea agreement implicated the discretionary aspect of a sentence); Berry, 877 A.2d 479 (finding that claim that trial court violated plea agreement by imposing consecutive sentences and not allowing defendant to withdraw plea implicated discretionar | 1 | 2018–2018 |
Commonwealth v. Curry
green
1 sentence2010Id.; Jacobs, 900 A.2d at 373-374 .[Footnote 5] Moreover, the mere fact that a rule or statute may govern or limit the trial court's exercise of discretion in sentencing does not necessarily convert the claim into one involving the legality of the sentence. | 1 | 2010–2010 |
Commonwealth v. Jacobs
green
2 sentences2007Id.; Jacobs, 900 A.2d at 373-374 . [5] Moreover, the mere fact that a rule or statute may govern or limit the trial court's exercise of discretion in sentencing does not necessarily convert the claim into one involving the legality of the sentence. 2007Id.; Jacobs, 900 A.2d at 373-374 . 5 Moreover, the mere fact that a rule or statute may govern or limit the trial court’s exercise of discretion in sen-fencing does not necessarily convert the claim into one involving the legality of the sentence. | 1 | 2007–2007 |
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.