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.
9 Pennsylvania opinions name it 1 courts 2014–2023 3 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. Kennergreen2 sentences2023See Commonwealth v. Kenner, 784 A.2d 808, 811 (Pa. Super. 2001), appeal denied, 796 A.2d 979 (Pa. 2002). -3- J-S45028-22 Here, Appellant has satisfied the first three requirements of the four- part Moury test. 2023See Commonwealth v. Kenner, 784 A.2d 808, 811 (Pa. Super. 2001), appeal denied, 796 A.2d 979 (Pa. 2002). -3- J-S45028-22 Here, Appellant has satisfied the first three requirements of the four- part Moury test. | 5 | 5 |
Forbes v. Pennsylvania Department of Correctionsgreen2 sentences2018Appellant filed a timely appeal to this Court, preserved the issue on appeal through his post-sentence motions, and submitted a Pa.R.A.P. 2119 statement in his brief. - 15 - J-S76020-17 Turning to the fourth requirement, we have found that a substantial question exists “when the appellant advances a colorable argument that the sentencing judge's actions were either: (1) inconsistent with a specific provision of the Sentencing Code; or (2) contrary to the fundamental norms which underlie the sentencing process.” Commonwealth v. Phillips, 946 A.2d 103, 112 (Pa. Super. 2008). 2018Appellant filed a timely appeal to this Court, preserved the issue on appeal through his post-sentence motions, and submitted a Pa.R.A.P. 2119 statement in his brief. - 15 - J-S76020-17 Turning to the fourth requirement, we have found that a substantial question exists “when the appellant advances a colorable argument that the sentencing judge's actions were either: (1) inconsistent with a specific provision of the Sentencing Code; or (2) contrary to the fundamental norms which underlie the sentencing process.” Commonwealth v. Phillips, 946 A.2d 103, 112 (Pa. Super. 2008). | 2 | 2 |
Commonwealth v. Cunninghamgreen1 sentence2020Commonwealth v. Bowen, 55 A.3d 1254, 1263 (Pa. Super. 2012) (quoting Commonwealth v. Cunningham, 805 A.2d 566, 575 (Pa. Super. 2002)), appeal denied, 64 A.3d 630 (Pa. 2013). - 15 - J-A16024-20 Here, Appellant has satisfied the first three requirements of the four- part Moury test. | 1 | 1 |
Commonwealth v. Bowengreen1 sentence2020Commonwealth v. Bowen, 55 A.3d 1254, 1263 (Pa. Super. 2012) (quoting Commonwealth v. Cunningham, 805 A.2d 566, 575 (Pa. Super. 2002)), appeal denied, 64 A.3d 630 (Pa. 2013). - 15 - J-A16024-20 Here, Appellant has satisfied the first three requirements of the four- part Moury test. | 1 | 1 |
Commonwealth v. Buterbaughgreen1 sentence2016Commonwealth v. Buterbaugh, 91 A.3d 1247, 1266 (Pa. Super. 2014) (en banc), appeal denied, 104 A.3d 1 (Pa. 2014). 5 We note that Appellant also failed to meet the third part of Moury test by not including a Pa.R.A.P. 2119(f) statement in his brief. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Pennsylvania. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Com. v. Phillips
green
1 sentence2014Appellant filed a timely appeal to this Court, preserved the issue on appeal through his motion to reconsider the sentence, and included a Pa.R.A.P. 2119(f) statement in his brief.1 Thus, we must determine only if advances a colorable argument that the senten either: (1) inconsistent with a specific provision of the Sentencing Code; or (2) contrary to the fundamental norms which underlie the sentencing Commonwealth v. Phillips, 946 A.2d 103, 112 (Pa. Super. 2008) (citation omitted), appeal denied, 964 A.2d 895 (Pa. 2009). | 1 | 2014–2014 |