sentence is within standard in Pennsylvania

2026Where, as here, the sentence is within the standard range of the guidelines, “Pennsylvania law views the sentence as appropriate - 15 - J-S03026-26 under the Sentencing Code.” Commonwealth v. Moury, 992 A.2d 162, 171 (Pa. Super. 2010).

2026“Further, where a sentence is within the standard range of the guidelines, Pennsylvania law views the sentence as appropriate under the Sentencing Code.” Commonwealth v. Moury, 992 A.2d 162, 171 (Pa. Super. 2010) (citation omitted).

2024Nonetheless, “where a sentence is within the standard range of the guidelines, Pennsylvania law views the sentence as appropriate under the Sentencing Code.” Commonwealth v. Moury, 992 A.2d 162, 171 (Pa. Super. 2010) (citing Commonwealth v. Cruz-Centeno, 668 A.2d 536 (Pa. Super. 1995), appeal denied, 676 A.2d 1195 (Pa. 1996)).

2023Nonetheless, "where a sentence is within the standard range of the guidelines, Pennsylvania law views the sentence as appropriate under the Sentencing Code." Commonwealth v. Moury, 992 A.2d 162, 171 ( Pa. Super. 2010) (citing Commonwealth v. Cruz- Centeno, 668 A.2d 536 ( Pa. Super. 1995), appeal denied, 676 A.2d 1195 ( Pa. 1996)).

2026See Commonwealth v. Hill, 210 A.3d 1104, 1117 (Pa. Super. 2019) (“[W]here a sentence is within the standard range of guidelines, Pennsylvania law views the sentence as appropriate under the Sentencing Code”).

2026It is well-established that when a sentence is within the standard range of the sentencing guidelines, “Pennsylvania law views the sentence as appropriate under the Sentencing Code.” Commonwealth v. Hill, 210 A.3d 1104, 1117 (Pa. Super. 2019).

2025Appellant’s minimum sentence of eleven months is within the recommended standard range. “[W]here a sentence is within the standard range of the guidelines, Pennsylvania law views the sentence as appropriate under the Sentencing Code.” Commonwealth v. Griffin, 65 A.3d 932, 937 (Pa. Super. 2013).

2023See Commonwealth v. Moury, 992 A.2d 162, 171 (Pa. Super. 2010) (“where a sentence is within the standard range of the guidelines, Pennsylvania law views the sentence as appropriate under the Sentencing Code”); see also Commonwealth v. Hill, 210 A.3d 1104, 1117 (Pa. Super. 2019) (citing Moury for that point); Commonwealth v. Antidormi, 84 A.3d 736 , 760 n.20 (Pa. Super. 2014) (same); Commonwealth v. Griffin, 65 A.3d 932, 937-38 (Pa. Super. 2013) (same).

2025Hence, we shall assume that the trial court received and reviewed the document. -8- J-S26025-25 standard-range sentence with the benefit of a [PSI] report, we will not consider the sentence excessive”); see also Commonwealth v. Moury, 992 A.2d 162, 171 (Pa. Super. 2010) (stating, “where a sentence is within the standard range of the [sentencing] guidelines, Pennsylvania law views the sentence as appropriate under the Sentencing Code”); see also Commonwealth v. Knox, 219 A.3d 186, 199 (Pa. Super. 2019) (stating that, when a trial court orders and reviews a PSI report prior to sentencing, this C

2021See Trial Court Opinion, 1/13/21, at 10; see also Moury, 992 A.2d at 171 (stating that where a sentence is within the standard range of the sentencing guidelines, Pennsylvania law presumes the sentence is appropriate under the Sentencing Code); Commonwealth v. Devers, 546 A.2d 12, 18 (Pa. 1988) (explaining that where a sentencing court considered the PSI, it is presumed that they are “aware of relevant information regarding the defendant’s character and weighed those considerations along with mitigating statutory factors.”); Commonwealth v. Prisk, 13 A.3d 526, 533 (Pa. Super. 2011) (stating th

2025See Commonwealth v. Corley, 31 A.3d 293, 298 (Pa. Super. 2011) (stating, “where the [trial] court imposed a standard-range sentence with the benefit of a [PSI] report, we will not consider the sentence excessive”); see also Commonwealth v. Moury, 992 A.2d 162, 171 (Pa. Super. 2010) (stating, “where a sentence is within the standard range of the [sentencing] guidelines, Pennsylvania law views the sentence as appropriate under the Sentencing Code”).

2024See Appellant’s Brief at 8; see also Commonwealth v. Corley, 31 A.3d 293, 298 (Pa. Super. 2011) (stating, “where the [trial] court imposed a standard-range sentence with the benefit of a [PSI] report, we will not consider the sentence excessive”); Moury, 992 A.2d at 171 (stating, “where a sentence is within the standard range of the [sentencing] guidelines, Pennsylvania law views the sentence as appropriate under the Sentencing Code”). - 11 - J-S26023-24 Judgment Entered.

2025See Commonwealth v. Hill, 210 A.3d 1104, 1117 (Pa. Super. 2019) (“[W]here a sentence is within the standard range of the guidelines, Pennsylvania law views the sentence as appropriate under the Sentencing Code.”) (citing Moury, 992 A.2d at 171 (holding combination of PSI and standard-range sentence, absent more, cannot be considered excessive or unreasonable)); see also Walls, 926 A.2d at 964 (“[R]ejection of a sentencing court’s imposition of sentence on unreasonableness grounds [should] occur infrequently”). - 13 - J-S05023-25 Based on the foregoing, Appellant’s discretionary sentencing chal

2023See Commonwealth v. Hill, 210 - 11 - J-S29009- 23 A.3d 1104, 1117 (Pa. Super. 2019) (stating “where a sentence is within the standard range of the guidelines, Pennsylvania law views the sentence as appropriate under the Sentencing Code.”) (citing Moury, 992 A.2d at 171 ) (holding combination of PSI and standard-range sentence, absent more, cannot be considered excessive or unreasonable)); see also Commonwealth v. Walls, 926 A.2d 957, 964 (Pa. 2007) (stating “rejection of a sentencing court’s imposition of sentence on unreasonableness grounds [should] occur infrequently”).

2025Trial Court Opinion, 3/21/25, at 3-4; see also Commonwealth v. Hill, 210 A.3 1104, 1117 (Pa. Super. 2019) (“Where a sentence is within the standard range of the guidelines, Pennsylvania law views the sentence as appropriate under the Sentencing Code.”) (citation omitted); Commonwealth v. Ventura, 975 A.2d 1128, 1135 (Pa. Super. 2009) (“Our Supreme Court has determined that where the trial court is informed by a pre-sentence report, it is presumed that the court is aware of all appropriate sentencing factors and considerations, and that where the court has been so informed, its discretion shoul

2023Commonwealth v. Lee, 2005 PA Super. 160, 876 A.2d 408, 411 (Pa.Super.2005). 14 "[W]here a sentence is within the standard range of the [sentencing] guidelines, Pennsylvania law views the sentence as appropriate under the Sentencing Code." Commonwealth v. Moury, 992 A.2d 162, 171 (Pa. Super. 2010); see also Commonwealth v. Ventura, 975 A.2d 1128, 1135 (Pa. Super. 2009).

2024See Moury, 992 A.2d at 171 (stating “where a sentence is within the standard range of the guidelines, Pennsylvania law views the sentence as appropriate under the Sentencing Code”); see also Commonwealth v. Radecki, 180 A.3d 441, 470 (Pa. Super. 2018) (“Pennsylvania law affords the sentencing court discretion to impose its sentence concurrently or consecutively to other sentences” (citation omitted)); Commonwealth v. Raven, 97 A.3d 1244, 1254-55 (Pa. Super. 2014) (holding defendant’s standard range sentences were not excessive where the “record reflects that the [sentencing] court carefully co

2023See, e.g., Commonwealth v. Moury, 992 A.2d 162, 171 (Pa. Super. 2010) (stating that “where a sentence is within the standard range of the guidelines, Pennsylvania law views the sentence as appropriate under the Sentencing Code,” and holding that a sentence was not unreasonable where trial court had the benefit of PSI and imposed a standard range sentence); Commonwealth v. Raven, 97 A.3d 1244, 1254-55 (Pa. Super. 2014) (defendant’s standard range sentences were neither unreasonable nor excessive where “record reflects that the [sentencing] court carefully considered all of the evidence presente

2020Ultimately, the Defendant received standard range sentences at each case, and courts have recognized that "where a sentence is within the standard range of the guidelines, Pennsylvania law views the sentence as appropriate under the Sentencing Code." Commonwealth v. Lam9nda, 52 A.3d 365, 372 (Pa. Super. 2012); See also Commonwealth v. Cru-Centeno, 668 A.2d 536 (Pa. Super. 1995), appeal denied, 676 A.2d 1195 (Oa. 1996) (stating combination of PSI and standard range sentence, absent ore, 32 cannot be considered excessive or unreasonable).

2019See Commonwealth v. Lamonda, 52 A.3d 365, 372 (Pa. Super. 2012) (“[W]here a sentence is within the standard range of the guidelines, -4- J-S09028-19 Pennsylvania law views the sentence as appropriate under the Sentencing Code.”).

2024See Moury, 992 A.2d at 171 (stating “where a sentence is within the standard range of the guidelines, Pennsylvania law views the sentence as appropriate under the Sentencing Code”); see also Commonwealth v. Radecki, 180 A.3d 441, 470 (Pa. Super. 2018) (“Pennsylvania law affords the sentencing court discretion to impose its sentence concurrently or consecutively to other sentences” (citation omitted)); Commonwealth v. Raven, 97 A.3d 1244, 1254-55 (Pa. Super. 2014) (holding defendant’s standard range sentences were not excessive where the “record reflects that the [sentencing] court carefully co

2020See, e.g., Moury, 992 A.2d at 171 (stating that “where a sentence is within the standard range of the guidelines, Pennsylvania law views the sentence as -7- J-S26003-20 appropriate under the Sentencing Code.”); see also Radecki, 180 A.3d at 470 (noting “although Pennsylvania’s system stands for individualized sentencing, the court is not required to impose the ‘minimum possible’ confinement.” (citation omitted)).

2026Additionally, where the court has a defendant’s pre-sentence investigation report, “the court is presumed to have weighed all relevant information regarding the defendant’s character against any mitigating factors.” Commonwealth v. Mulkin, 228 A.3d 913, 917 (Pa. Super. 2020).

2025Additionally, where the court has a defendant’s PSI report, “the court is presumed to have weighed all relevant information regarding the defendant’s character against any mitigating factors.” Commonwealth v. Mulkin, 228 A.3d 913, 917 (Pa.Super. 2020).

2023Commonwealth v. Zirkle, 107 A.3d 127, 133 (Pa. Super. 2014); Moury, 992 A.2d at 171 (“[W]here a sentence is within the standard range of the guidelines, Pennsylvania law views the sentence as appropriate under the Sentencing Code.”).

2023Commonwealth v. Zirkle, 107 A.3d 127, 133 (Pa.Super. 2014); Moury, 992 A.2d at 171 (“[W]here a sentence is within the standard range of the guidelines, Pennsylvania law views the sentence as appropriate under the Sentencing Code.”).

2021Furthermore, “the trial judge may determine whether, given the particular facts of a particular case, a sentence should run consecutive to[,] or concurrent with[,] another sentence being imposed.” Commonwealth v. Lilley, 978 A.2d 995, 998 (Pa. Super. 2009); see also 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9721(a).

2020Furthermore, “the trial judge may determine whether, given the facts of a particular case, a sentence should run consecutive to[,] or concurrent with[,] another sentence being imposed.” Commonwealth v. Lilley, 978 A.2d 995, 998 (Pa. Super. 2009).

2020Commonwealth v. McClendon, 589 A.2d 706, 712 (Pa. Super. 1991) (internal citations and quotation marks omitted). “[W]here a sentence is within the standard range of the guidelines, Pennsylvania law views the sentence as appropriate under the Sentencing Code.” Commonwealth v. Moury, 992 A.2d 162, 171 (Pa. Super. 2010).

2019Commonwealth v. McClendon, 589 A.2d 706, 712 (Pa. Super. 1991) (internal citations and quotation marks omitted). “[W]here a sentence is within the standard range of the guidelines, Pennsylvania law views the sentence as appropriate under the Sentencing Code.” Commonwealth v. Moury, 992 A.2d 162, 171 (Pa. Super. 2010). -7- J-S83038-18 Initially, the trial court had the benefit of a pre-sentence investigation report (“PSI”), which the court expressly stated it had considered prior to imposing sentence.

2025As such, a sentencing court shall be deemed to have abused its discretion “only if -7- J-S12001-25 application of the guidelines is clearly unreasonable.” Commonwealth v. Macias, 968 A.2d 773, 777 (Pa. Super. 2009).

2024On appeal, “[w]e cannot re-weigh the sentencing factors and impose our judgment in place of the sentencing court.” Commonwealth v. Macias, 968 A.2d 773, 778 (Pa. Super. 2009).

2024Generally, however, in order to establish that there is a substantial question, the appellant must show actions by the sentencing court inconsistent with the Sentencing Code or contrary to the fundamental norms underlying the sentencing process.” Commonwealth v. Marts, 889 A.2d 608, 612 (Pa. Super. 2005) (internal citations omitted). “[W]here a sentence is within the standard range of the guidelines, Pennsylvania law views the sentence as appropriate under the Sentencing Code.” Commonwealth v. Moury, 992 A.2d 162, 171 (Pa. Super. 2010). “[W]here the trial court is informed by a presentence inv

2020As to consecutive sentences, “long standing precedent . . . recognizes that [the Sentencing Code] affords the sentencing court discretion to impose its sentence concurrently or consecutively to other sentences being imposed at the same time or to sentences already imposed.” Commonwealth v. Marts, 889 A.2d 608, 612 (Pa. Super. 2005).

2024A trial court’s decision to impose Cortes’ sentence consecutive to his parole violation sentences generally does not raise a substantial question as it “has discretion to impose sentences consecutively[.]” Id. (citation omitted). “[A] bald claim of excessiveness due to the consecutive nature of a sentence -8- J-S09035-24 will not raise a substantial question.” Commonwealth v. Dodge, 77 A.3d 1263, 1270 (Pa. Super. 2013); see also Moury, 992 A.2d at 171-72 (“The imposition of consecutive, rather than concurrent, sentences may raise a substantial question in only the most extreme circumstances, s

2021Commonwealth v. Dodge, 957 A.2d 1198, 1200 (Pa. Super. 2008).

2024A trial court’s decision to impose Cortes’ sentence consecutive to his parole violation sentences generally does not raise a substantial question as it “has discretion to impose sentences consecutively[.]” Id. (citation omitted). “[A] bald claim of excessiveness due to the consecutive nature of a sentence -8- J-S09035-24 will not raise a substantial question.” Commonwealth v. Dodge, 77 A.3d 1263, 1270 (Pa. Super. 2013); see also Moury, 992 A.2d at 171-72 (“The imposition of consecutive, rather than concurrent, sentences may raise a substantial question in only the most extreme circumstances, s

2017Second, Appellant’s argument regarding the imposition of consecutive sentences does not raise a substantial question where he has failed to prove an “extreme circumstance . . . where the aggregate sentence is unduly harsh, considering the nature of the crimes and the length of imprisonment.” See Commonwealth v. Dodge, 77 A.3d 1263, 1270 (Pa. Super. 2013).

2021Moreover, “where the trial court is informed by a pre-sentence report, it is presumed that the court is aware of all appropriate sentencing factors and considerations, and that where the court has been so informed, its discretion should not be disturbed.” Commonwealth v. Downing, 990 A.2d 788, 794 (Pa. Super. 2010) (quotation marks and citations omitted).

2019N.T., 5/25/18, at 3. “[W]here the trial court is informed by a [PSI], it is presumed that the court is aware of all appropriate sentencing factors and considerations, and that where the court has been so informed, its discretion should not be disturbed.” Commonwealth v. Downing, 990 A.2d 788, 794 (Pa. Super. 2010) (quotation marks and citations omitted).

2025To demonstrate an abuse of discretion, the defendant must “establish, by reference to the record, that the sentencing court ignored or misapplied the law, exercised its judgment for reasons of partiality, prejudice, bias[,] or ill will, or arrived at a manifestly unreasonable decision.” Commonwealth v. Antidormi, 84 A.3d 736, 760 (Pa. Super. 2014) (citation omitted). “[W]here a sentence is within the standard range of the guidelines, Pennsylvania law views the sentence as appropriate under the Sentencing Code.” Commonwealth v. Moury, 992 A.2d 162, 171 (Pa. Super. 2010) (citation omitted).

2023See Commonwealth v. Moury, 992 A.2d 162, 171 (Pa. Super. 2010) (“where a sentence is within the standard range of the guidelines, Pennsylvania law views the sentence as appropriate under the Sentencing Code”); see also Commonwealth v. Hill, 210 A.3d 1104, 1117 (Pa. Super. 2019) (citing Moury for that point); Commonwealth v. Antidormi, 84 A.3d 736 , 760 n.20 (Pa. Super. 2014) (same); Commonwealth v. Griffin, 65 A.3d 932, 937-38 (Pa. Super. 2013) (same).

2026Furthermore, “where the trial court is informed by a PSI [report], it is presumed that the court is aware of all appropriate sentencing factors and considerations, and that where the court has been so informed, its discretion should not be disturbed.” Commonwealth v. Edwards, 194 A.3d 625, 638 (Pa. Super. 2018) (citation omitted and formatting altered). “[W]here a sentence is within the standard range of the guidelines, Pennsylvania law views the sentence as appropriate under the Sentencing Code.” Moury, 992 A.2d at 171 (citation omitted).

2026See Commonwealth v. Rivera, 199 A.3d 365, 384 (Pa. 2018) (counsel cannot be ineffective for failing to pursue a meritless claim on appeal).

2026Clemat, 218 A.3d at 959-60 (citation omitted). “[W]here a sentence is within the standard range of the guidelines, Pennsylvania law views the sentence as appropriate under the Sentencing Code.” Moury, 992 A.2d at 171 .

2025When imposing an aggravated-range sentence, the court “shall state the reasons on the record[.]” Commonwealth v. Mrozik, 213 A.3d 273, 278 (Pa. Super. 2019) (citation omitted). -7- J-A12029-25 * All of Appellant’s claims challenge the trial court’s discretion in imposing his sentence and, thus, we address them together.

2025Hence, we shall assume that the trial court received and reviewed the document. -8- J-S26025-25 standard-range sentence with the benefit of a [PSI] report, we will not consider the sentence excessive”); see also Commonwealth v. Moury, 992 A.2d 162, 171 (Pa. Super. 2010) (stating, “where a sentence is within the standard range of the [sentencing] guidelines, Pennsylvania law views the sentence as appropriate under the Sentencing Code”); see also Commonwealth v. Knox, 219 A.3d 186, 199 (Pa. Super. 2019) (stating that, when a trial court orders and reviews a PSI report prior to sentencing, this C

2025Goodco Mechanical, supra at 410 (citations 410 (citations omitted). a Finally, if "a sentence is within the standard range of the guidelines, Pennsylvania law views the sentence as appropriate under the Sentencing Code." Commonwealth v. • Hill, 210 A.3d 1104 , 1117 1117 (Pa.Super. 2019) (citation (Pa.Super. 2019) (citation omitted).

2025See Bankes, 286 A.3d at 1307 ; see also Commonwealth v. Moury, 992 A.2d 162, 171 (Pa. Super. 2010) (“[W]here a sentence is within the standard range of the guidelines, Pennsylvania law views the sentence as appropriate under the Sentencing Code.” (citation omitted)).

2025Appellant argues that the sentence was unreasonable. “[W]here a sentence is within the standard range of the guidelines, Pennsylvania law views the sentence as appropriate under the Sentencing Code.” Moury, 992 -8- J-S48001-24 A.2d at 171 (standard range sentence imposed with benefit of a PSI report, “absent more, cannot be considered excessive or unreasonable”).

2024Commonwealth v. Moury, 992 A.2d 162, 171 (Pa. Super. 2010) (citation omitted). “[T]he imposition of consecutive rather than concurrent sentences lies within the sound discretion of the sentencing court, and a challenge to the imposition of consecutive sentences simply does not raise a substantial question.” Commonwealth v. Lloyd, 878 A.2d 867, 873 (Pa. Super. 2005) (citations omitted).