68 Pennsylvania opinions name it 1 courts 2006–2026 30 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. Monjaras-Amayagreen2 sentences2025Before considering the merits of Appellant’s claim, we must first address whether Appellant has waived his challenge to the validity of his guilty plea by failing to preserve it before the trial court.5 Generally, “[i]n order to preserve an issue related to a guilty plea, an appellant must either object at the sentence colloquy or otherwise raise the issue at the sentencing hearing or through a post-sentence motion.” Commonwealth v. Monjaras-Amaya, 163 A.3d 466, 468-69 (Pa. Super. 2017) (citations omitted and formatting altered). 2025“In order to preserve an issue related to a guilty plea, an appellant must either object at the sentence colloquy or otherwise raise the issue at the sentencing hearing or through a post-sentence motion.” Id. at 469 (citation and quotation marks omitted). | 24 | 25 |
Commonwealth v. D'Collanfieldgreen2 sentences2026Counsel points out that to preserve an issue related to the validity of a nolo contendere plea, an appellant must either “object at the sentence colloquy or otherwise raise the issue at the sentencing hearing or through a post-sentence motion.” Id. at 13-14 (quoting Commonwealth v. D’Collanfield, 805 A.2d 1244, 1246 (Pa. Super. 2002)). 2024Indeed, she never lodged any challenge to her plea prior to the instant appeal. -2- J-A29035-23 In a nearly identical scenario, this Court outlined the consequences of failing to file a motion to withdraw upon a subsequent appellate claim challenging the validity of a guilty plea: In order to preserve an issue related to a guilty plea, an appellant must either “object at the sentence colloquy or otherwise raise the issue at the sentencing hearing or through a post-sentence motion.” Commonwealth v. D'Collanfield, 805 A.2d 1244 , 1246 (Pa.Super. 2002). | 22 | 23 |
Commonwealth v. Tareilagreen2 sentences2025A defendant whose plea is not accepted by the court shall be entitled to a jury trial, except that if a defendant subsequently waives his right to a jury trial, the judge who presided at the hearing on mental illness shall not preside at the trial. 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 314(b). -4- J-A07028-25 As we have held, “[i]n order to preserve an issue related to the guilty plea, an appellant must either object at the sentence colloquy or otherwise raise the issue at the sentencing hearing or through a post-sentence motion.” Commonwealth v. Tareila, 895 A.2d 1266 , 1270 n.3 (Pa. Super. 2006) (quotation marks, 2021Commonwealth v. Tareila, 895 A.2d 1266 , 1270 n. 3 (Pa. Super. 2006) (“[i]n order to preserve an issue related to the guilty plea, an appellant must either object at the sentence colloquy or otherwise raise the issue at the sentencing hearing or through a post-sentence motion”) (quotation marks, citations, and corrections omitted); Pa.R.A.P. 302(a) (“[i]ssues not raised in the lower court are waived and cannot be raised for the first time on appeal”). | 11 | 21 |
Commonwealth v. Lincolngreen2 sentences2024“Failure to employ either measure results in waiver.” Commonwealth v. Lincoln, 72 A.3d 606, 610 (Pa.Super. 2013), appeal denied, 624 Pa. 688 , 87 A.3d 319 (2014). 2019See Commonwealth v. Lincoln, 72 A.3d 606, 609-10 (Pa. Super 2013); see also Commonwealth v. Tarelia, 895 A.2d 1266 , 1270 n.3 (Pa. Super. 2006) (explaining that in order to preserve an issue related to the guilty plea, an appellant must either object at the sentence colloquy or otherwise raise the issue at the sentencing hearing or through a post-sentence motion); see also Pa.R.A.P. 302(a) (stating that ”[i]ssues not raised in the lower court are waived and cannot be raised for the first time on appeal”). | 4 | 4 |
Commonwealth v. Archergreen2 sentences2020See id.; see also Commonwealth v. D’Collanfield, 805 A.2d 1244, 1246 (Pa. Super. 2002) (appellant’s argument that there was an insufficient factual basis for the plea was not properly preserved for appeal because trial counsel failed to preserve the issue by objecting at the sentencing colloquy or raising the issue at the sentencing hearing or through a post-sentence motion); Commonwealth v. Archer, 722 A.2d 203, 209 (Pa. Super. 1998) (issues not preserved on appeal are waived).1 Lomax’s fourth issue is a claim of ineffective assistance of trial counsel with respect to the plea proceedings. 2016S14007/16 counsel failed to preserve the issue by objecting at the sentencing colloquy or otherwise raising the issue at the sentencing hearing or through a post-sentence motion), citing Pa.R.Crim.P. 720(B), and Commonwealth v. Archer, 722 A.2d 203, 209 (Pa.Super. 1998) (issues not preserved on appeal are waived); Commonwealth v. Grant, 813 A.2d 726 (Pa. 2002) (defendants should wait until the collateral review phase to raise claims of ineffective assistance of counsel); Commonwealth v. Holmes, 79 A.3d 562 (Pa. 2013) (reaffirming Grant and holding that, absent specific circumstances not applic | 2 | 2 |
Commonwealth v. Cartrettegreen2 sentences2020See id., 83 A.3d at 1042-43 (finding challenge to discretionary aspects of sentencing wholly frivolous where appellant failed to raise it in a post-sentence motion or at sentencing). 2020See id., 83 A.3d at 1042-43 (finding challenge to discretionary aspects of sentencing wholly frivolous where appellant failed to raise it in a post-sentence motion or at sentencing). | 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. May
green
2 sentences2018See Appellant’s Brief at 1-9. -5- J-S05008-18 Commonwealth v. Tareila, 895 A.2d 1266 , 1270 n.3 (“[i]n order to preserve an issue related to the guilty plea, an appellant must either object at the sentence colloquy or otherwise raise the issue at the sentencing hearing or through a post-sentence motion”) (internal quotations, citations, and corrections omitted); Commonwealth v. May, 402 A.2d 1008 , 1009 n.3 (Pa. 1979) (where, in the trial court, appellant sought to withdraw his guilty plea based upon the specific claim that appellant “did not fully understand the significance of the sentence t 2015Pa.R.A.P. 302(a) (“[i]ssues not raised in the lower court are waived and cannot be raised for the first time on appeal”); Commonwealth v. Tareila, 895 A.2d 1266 , 1270 n.3 (“[i]n order to preserve an issue related to the guilty plea, an appellant must either object at the sentence colloquy or otherwise raise the issue at the sentencing hearing or through a post-sentence motion”) (internal quotations, citations, and corrections omitted); Commonwealth v. May, 402 A.2d 1008 , 1009 n.3 (Pa. 1979) (where, in the trial court, appellant sought to withdraw his guilty plea based upon the specific claim | 2 | 2015–2018 |
Commonwealth v. Lloyd
green
2 sentences2016Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) Statement, 8/19/14, at 1 (challenging his sentence on the basis that “the evidence introduced at trial showed [Appellant’s] actions to be a single criminal episode and not separate and distinct incidents of criminality”); TCO at 26-30 (addressing only Appellant’s claim that ____________________________________________ 4 See also Commonwealth v. Bullock, 948 A.2d 818 (Pa. Super. 2008) (the right to appeal a discretionary aspect of sentence is not absolute and is waived if the appellant does not challenge it in post-sentence motions or by raising the claim during the sentencing 2014Accordingly, he has not preserved his challenges to the discretionary aspects of his sentence.5 ____________________________________________ 4 See also Commonwealth v. Bullock, 948 A.2d 818 (Pa. Super. 2008) (stating the right to appeal a discretionary aspect of sentence is not absolute and is waived if the appellant does not challenge it in post-sentence motions or by raising the claim during the sentencing proceedings); Commonwealth v. Lloyd, 878 A.2d 867 (Pa. Super. 2005) (finding the appellant waived his challenge to his sentence where he failed to raise the issue at the sentencing hearing | 2 | 2014–2016 |
Commonwealth v. Bullock
green
2 sentences2016Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) Statement, 8/19/14, at 1 (challenging his sentence on the basis that “the evidence introduced at trial showed [Appellant’s] actions to be a single criminal episode and not separate and distinct incidents of criminality”); TCO at 26-30 (addressing only Appellant’s claim that ____________________________________________ 4 See also Commonwealth v. Bullock, 948 A.2d 818 (Pa. Super. 2008) (the right to appeal a discretionary aspect of sentence is not absolute and is waived if the appellant does not challenge it in post-sentence motions or by raising the claim during the sentencing 2014Accordingly, he has not preserved his challenges to the discretionary aspects of his sentence.5 ____________________________________________ 4 See also Commonwealth v. Bullock, 948 A.2d 818 (Pa. Super. 2008) (stating the right to appeal a discretionary aspect of sentence is not absolute and is waived if the appellant does not challenge it in post-sentence motions or by raising the claim during the sentencing proceedings); Commonwealth v. Lloyd, 878 A.2d 867 (Pa. Super. 2005) (finding the appellant waived his challenge to his sentence where he failed to raise the issue at the sentencing hearing | 2 | 2014–2016 |
Commonwealth v. Jabbie
green
1 sentence2023In addition, to preserve a challenge to a guilty plea, an appellant must either “object at the sentence colloquy or otherwise raise the issue at the sentencing hearing or through a post-sentence motion.” Commonwealth v. Monjaras-Amaya, 163 A.3d 466 , 468–69 (Pa.Super. 2017) (citations omitted). “[A] request to withdraw a guilty plea on the grounds that it was involuntary is one of the claims that must be raised by motion in the trial court in order to be reviewed on direct appeal.” Jabbie, 200 A.3d at 506 . | 1 | 2023–2023 |
Commonwealth v. Malovich
green
1 sentence2019Id. | 1 | 2019–2019 |
Commonwealth v. Moury
green
1 sentence2017Because Appellant failed to preserve his issue before the trial court, he failed to satisfy the second prerequisite to appellate review, see Colon, 102 A.3d at 1042-43 ; Moury, 992 A.2d at 170 , and thus, his issue is frivolous for purposes of Anders. | 1 | 2017–2017 |
Commonwealth v. Colon
green
1 sentence2017Because Appellant failed to preserve his issue before the trial court, he failed to satisfy the second prerequisite to appellate review, see Colon, 102 A.3d at 1042-43 ; Moury, 992 A.2d at 170 , and thus, his issue is frivolous for purposes of Anders. | 1 | 2017–2017 |
Commonwealth v. Parker
green
1 sentence2016Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) Statement, 8/19/14, at 1 (challenging his sentence on the basis that “the evidence introduced at trial showed [Appellant’s] actions to be a single criminal episode and not separate and distinct incidents of criminality”); TCO at 26-30 (addressing only Appellant’s claim that ____________________________________________ 4 See also Commonwealth v. Bullock, 948 A.2d 818 (Pa. Super. 2008) (the right to appeal a discretionary aspect of sentence is not absolute and is waived if the appellant does not challenge it in post-sentence motions or by raising the claim during the sentencing | 1 | 2016–2016 |
Commonwealth v. Grant
green
1 sentence2016S14007/16 counsel failed to preserve the issue by objecting at the sentencing colloquy or otherwise raising the issue at the sentencing hearing or through a post-sentence motion), citing Pa.R.Crim.P. 720(B), and Commonwealth v. Archer, 722 A.2d 203, 209 (Pa.Super. 1998) (issues not preserved on appeal are waived); Commonwealth v. Grant, 813 A.2d 726 (Pa. 2002) (defendants should wait until the collateral review phase to raise claims of ineffective assistance of counsel); Commonwealth v. Holmes, 79 A.3d 562 (Pa. 2013) (reaffirming Grant and holding that, absent specific circumstances not applic | 1 | 2016–2016 |
Commonwealth v. Holmes
green
1 sentence2016S14007/16 counsel failed to preserve the issue by objecting at the sentencing colloquy or otherwise raising the issue at the sentencing hearing or through a post-sentence motion), citing Pa.R.Crim.P. 720(B), and Commonwealth v. Archer, 722 A.2d 203, 209 (Pa.Super. 1998) (issues not preserved on appeal are waived); Commonwealth v. Grant, 813 A.2d 726 (Pa. 2002) (defendants should wait until the collateral review phase to raise claims of ineffective assistance of counsel); Commonwealth v. Holmes, 79 A.3d 562 (Pa. 2013) (reaffirming Grant and holding that, absent specific circumstances not applic | 1 | 2016–2016 |
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.
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.