8 Pennsylvania opinions name it 1 courts 2015–2026 5 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. Matronigreen2 sentences2018Commonwealth v. Matroni, 923 A.2d 444, 455 (Pa. Super. 27 2007). 2017When a sentence falls within the standard range of the sentencing guidelines, '"[the Superior Court] has held on numerous occasions that a claim of inadequate consideration of mitigating factors does not raise a substantial question for our review.'" Commonwealth v. Matroni, 923 A.2d 444, 455 (Pa. Super. 2007) (quoting Commonwealth v. Bullock, 868 A.2d 516, 529 (Pa. Super. 2005)). | 2 | 2 |
Commonwealth v. Mourygreen2 sentences2022Moury, 992 A.2d at 171 . 2015Finally, “where a sentence falls 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) (citations omitted). | 1 | 3 |
Com. v. Velez, J.green1 sentence2026See Commonwealth v. Crawford, 257 A.3d 75, 79 (Pa. Super. 2021); see also Commonwealth v. Velez, 273 A.3d 6, 10 (Pa. Super. 2022) (noting that the “weight accorded to the mitigating factors or aggravating factors presented to the sentencing court is within the [sentencing] court's exclusive domain.”). | 1 | 1 |
Com. v. Crawford, C.green1 sentence2026See Commonwealth v. Crawford, 257 A.3d 75, 79 (Pa. Super. 2021); see also Commonwealth v. Velez, 273 A.3d 6, 10 (Pa. Super. 2022) (noting that the “weight accorded to the mitigating factors or aggravating factors presented to the sentencing court is within the [sentencing] court's exclusive domain.”). | 1 | 1 |
Commonwealth v. Seagravesgreen1 sentence2025Moreover, where the sentence falls within the standard guideline range and the court had the benefit of a PSI report, “we presume that the court was aware of the relevant information regarding the defendant’s character and weighed those considerations along with any mitigating factors.” Commonwealth v. Seagraves, 103 A.3d 839, 842 (Pa. Super. 2014) (citation omitted). | 1 | 1 |
Commonwealth v. Mobleygreen1 sentence2022Commonwealth v. Mobley, 581 A.2d 949, 952 (Pa. Super. 1990). | 1 | 1 |
Commonwealth v. Bullockgreen1 sentence2017When a sentence falls within the standard range of the sentencing guidelines, '"[the Superior Court] has held on numerous occasions that a claim of inadequate consideration of mitigating factors does not raise a substantial question for our review.'" Commonwealth v. Matroni, 923 A.2d 444, 455 (Pa. Super. 2007) (quoting Commonwealth v. Bullock, 868 A.2d 516, 529 (Pa. Super. 2005)). | 1 | 1 |
Commonwealth v. Felmleegreen1 sentence2017However, Appellant's sentence on three counts was above the aggravated range of the sentencing guidelines, and a "claim that the court erred by imposing an aggravated range sentence without consideration of mitigating circumstances raises a substantial question." Commonwealth v. Felmlee, 828 A.2d 1105, 1107 (Pa. Super. 2003). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Pennsylvania. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
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.