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.
8 Pennsylvania opinions name it 1 courts 2013–2026 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. Ravengreen2 sentences2025See Raven, 97 A.3d at 1255 (rejecting defendant’s abuse of discretion claim; “[t]he gist of Raven’s argument is not that the court failed to consider the pertinent sentencing factors, but rather that the court weighed those factors in a manner inconsistent with his wishes”). 2025See Commonwealth v. Raven, 97 A.3d 1244, 1255 (Pa. Super. 2014) (rejecting Raven’s abuse of sentencing discretion claim, explaining that “[t]he gist of Raven’s argument is not that the court failed to consider the pertinent sentencing factors, but rather that the court weighed those factors in a manner inconsistent with his wishes” and that “the court carefully considered all of the evidence presented at the sentencing hearing”). | 4 | 4 |
Commonwealth v. MacIasgreen2 sentences2018See Macias, supra at 778. 2013See Macias, supra at 778. | 2 | 2 |
Commonwealth v. Dodgegreen1 sentence2026“Since the court more than adequately considered the pertinent sentencing factors and merely weighed them in a manner inconsistent with Appellant’s desires, we find his [only] issue does not entitle him to relief.” Commonwealth v. Dodge, 77 A.3d 1263, 1276 (Pa. Super. 2013). | 1 | 1 |
Commonwealth v. Davisgreen1 sentence2018See Commonwealth v. Pittman, 737 A.2d 732 (Pa.Super.1999); Rhoades, supra. Since the court adequately considered the pertinent sentencing factors and merely weighed them in a manner inconsistent with Appellant's desires, I agree he cannot prove prejudice. | 1 | 1 |
Commonwealth v. Downinggreen1 sentence2017Moreover, where the sentencing judge has the benefit of a PSI, “it will be presumed that he or she was aware of the relevant information regarding the defendant’s character and weighed those considerations along with mitigating statutory factors.” Commonwealth v. Finnecy, 135 A.3d 1028, 1038 (Pa. Super. 2016); see also Commonwealth v. Downing, 990 A.2d 788, 794 (Pa. Super. 2010) (“Our Supreme Court has determined that where 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 s | 1 | 1 |
Commonwealth v. Finnecygreen1 sentence2017Moreover, where the sentencing judge has the benefit of a PSI, “it will be presumed that he or she was aware of the relevant information regarding the defendant’s character and weighed those considerations along with mitigating statutory factors.” Commonwealth v. Finnecy, 135 A.3d 1028, 1038 (Pa. Super. 2016); see also Commonwealth v. Downing, 990 A.2d 788, 794 (Pa. Super. 2010) (“Our Supreme Court has determined that where 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 s | 1 | 1 |
Harris v. Pennsylvania Department of Correctionsgreen1 sentence2017Commonwealth v. Proctor, 156 A.3d 261, 274 (Pa. Super. 2017); accord Commonwealth v. Raven, 97 A.3d 1244, 1255 (Pa. Super. 2014) (“The gist of Raven’s argument is not that the court failed to consider the pertinent sentencing factors, but rather that the court weighed those factors in a manner inconsistent with his wishes.”). | 1 | 1 |
Commonwealth v. Delucagreen1 sentence2015Cf. Commonwealth v. DeLuca, 418 A.2d 669, 671 (Pa.Super. 1980) (“In light of the fact that [the VOP court] was familiar with appellant from the initial sentencing and pre-sentence report, this indicates a sufficient consideration of the pertinent sentencing factors.”). | 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. Rhoades
green
1 sentence2018See Commonwealth v. Pittman, 737 A.2d 732 (Pa.Super.1999); Rhoades, supra. Since the court adequately considered the pertinent sentencing factors and merely weighed them in a manner inconsistent with Appellant's desires, I agree he cannot prove prejudice. | 1 | 2018–2018 |
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.