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 2016–2026 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. Corleygreen2 sentences2026“Where the sentencing court imposes a standard-range sentence with the benefit of a [PSI] report, we will not consider the sentence excessive.” Commonwealth v. Bankes, 286 A.3d 1302, 1307 (Pa.Super. 2022) (quoting Commonwealth v. Corley, 31 A.3d 293, 298 (Pa.Super. 2011)). 2018Commonwealth v. Corley, 31 A.3d 293, 298 (Pa. Super. 2011). | 5 | 5 |
Com. v. Bankes, A.green2 sentences2026“Where the sentencing court imposes a standard-range sentence with the benefit of a [PSI] report, we will not consider the sentence excessive.” Commonwealth v. Bankes, 286 A.3d 1302, 1307 (Pa.Super. 2022) (quoting Commonwealth v. Corley, 31 A.3d 293, 298 (Pa.Super. 2011)). 2025Significantly, “[w]here the sentencing court imposes a standard- range sentence with the benefit of a [PSI], we will not consider the sentence excessive.” Commonwealth v. Bankes, 286 A.3d 1302, 1307 (Pa. Super. 2022) (citation and brackets omitted). | 4 | 4 |
Commonwealth v. Mourygreen2 sentences2018Commonwealth v. Moury, 992 A.2d 162, 171 (Pa. Super. 2010). 2018Commonwealth v. Corley, 31 A.3d 293, 298 (Pa. Super. 2011), citing Commonwealth v. Moury, 992 A.2d 162, 171 (Pa. Super. 2010). | 3 | 3 |
Com. v. Sexton, S.green1 sentence2024Commonwealth v. Sexton, 222 A.3d 405, 422 (Pa. Super. 2019) (citation omitted); see also Commonwealth v. Bankes, 286 A.3d 1302, 1307 (Pa. Super. 2022) (“[w]here the sentencing court imposes a standard-range sentence with the benefit of a presentence report, [the appellate court] will not consider the sentence excessive”). | 1 | 1 |
Com. v. Summers, B.green1 sentence2024We defer to the sentencing court’s assessment of the sentencing factors as it is “in the best position to measure factors such as the nature of the crime, the defendant’s character, and the defendant’s display of remorse, defiance, or indifference.” Summers, 245 A.3d at 696 (citation omitted). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Pennsylvania. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
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.