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.
7 Pennsylvania opinions name it 2 courts 2000–2026 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. Kraftgreen2 sentences2018As we stated in Commonwealth v. Disalvo , 70 A.3d 900 (Pa.Super. 2013), "this [c]ourt has held on numerous occasions that a claim of inadequate consideration of mitigating factors does not raise a substantial question for our review." See also Commonwealth v. Kraft , 737 A.2d 755 , 757 (Pa.Super. 1999), appeal denied , 560 Pa. 742 , 747 A.2d 366 (1999) (determining appellant's claim that sentence of incarceration for DUS violation was excessive because sentencing court failed to adequately consider certain mitigating factors did not raise substantial question). 2015See Id.; see also Commonwealth v. Kraft, 737 A.2d 755, 757 (Pa. Super. 1999), appeal denied, 560 Pa. 742 , 747 A.2d 366 (1999)(determining appellant's claim that sentence of incarceration for DUS violation was excessive because sentencing court failed to adequately consider certain mitigating factors did not raise substantial question). | 2 | 3 |
Commonwealth v. Shifflergreen2 sentences2026See Shiffler, 879 A.2d at 189 (“when the words of a statute are clear and free from all ambiguity, the letter of it is not to be disregarded under the pretext of pursuing its spirit”) (quotation marks, citations, and corrections omitted); see also 1 Pa.C.S.A. § 1921(b). 2026See Shiffler, 879 A.2d at 189 (“when the words of a statute are clear and free from all ambiguity, the letter of it is not to be disregarded under the pretext of pursuing its spirit”) (quotation marks, citations, and corrections omitted); see also 1 Pa.C.S.A. § 1921(b). | 2 | 2 |
Commonwealth v. Disalvogreen2 sentences2018As we stated in Commonwealth v. Disalvo , 70 A.3d 900 (Pa.Super. 2013), "this [c]ourt has held on numerous occasions that a claim of inadequate consideration of mitigating factors does not raise a substantial question for our review." See also Commonwealth v. Kraft , 737 A.2d 755 , 757 (Pa.Super. 1999), appeal denied , 560 Pa. 742 , 747 A.2d 366 (1999) (determining appellant's claim that sentence of incarceration for DUS violation was excessive because sentencing court failed to adequately consider certain mitigating factors did not raise substantial question). 2015Commonwealth v. Disalvo, 70 A.3d 900, 903 (Pa. Super. 2013).4 ____________________________________________ 4 We are cognizant of a recent opinon, Commonwealth v. Raven, 97 A.3d 1244, 1253 (Pa. Super. 2014), that stated the failure to consider mitigating circumstances does present a substantial question. | 1 | 2 |
Com. v. White, C.green2 sentences2026See White, 268 A.3d at 501 . 2026White, 268 A.3d at 501 . | 1 | 1 |
Commonwealth v. Eid, K., Aplt.green2 sentences2026Since we conclude that Section 1543(1)(1) provides a statutory maximum penalty for its violation, we hold that the statute “specif[ies] the range of available sentences with sufficient clarity” and “afford[s] sufficient notice for due process purposes.” See Eid, 249 A.3d at 1044 (quotation ____________________________________________ 4 Prior to February 1, 2004, Section 1543 declared that a DUS violation was “a summary offense and [the violator] shall be sentenced . . . to undergo imprisonment for a period of not less than 90 days.” See 75 Pa.C.S.A. § 1543(b)(1) (effective December 3, 2002 to 2026Since we conclude that Section 1543(1)(1) provides a statutory maximum penalty for its violation, we hold that the statute “specif[ies] the range of available sentences with sufficient clarity” and “afford[s] sufficient notice for due process purposes.” See Eid, 249 A.3d at 1044 (quotation ____________________________________________ 4 Prior to February 1, 2004, Section 1543 declared that a DUS violation was “a summary offense and [the violator] shall be sentenced . . . to undergo imprisonment for a period of not less than 90 days.” See 75 Pa.C.S.A. § 1543(b)(1) (effective December 3, 2002 to | 1 | 1 |
Commonwealth v. Ravengreen1 sentence2015Commonwealth v. Disalvo, 70 A.3d 900, 903 (Pa. Super. 2013).4 ____________________________________________ 4 We are cognizant of a recent opinon, Commonwealth v. Raven, 97 A.3d 1244, 1253 (Pa. Super. 2014), that stated the failure to consider mitigating circumstances does present a substantial question. | 1 | 1 |
Commonwealth v. Shartlegreen1 sentence2000Shartle, 652 A.2d at 877 (concluding trial court did not err in denying defendant credit against her sentence for reckless endangerment for time spent under house arrest prior to preliminary hearing). ¶ 11 In short, the sentencing code does not permit IP for a DUI related DUS violation. | 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. Glover
green
2 sentences2026White’s holding in this regard derives from 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9756(b)(1)’s general requirement, which mandates that a sentencing court “impose a minimum sentence of confinement which shall not exceed one-half of the maximum sentence imposed,” as well as our Supreme Court’s 1959 opinion in Commonwealth v. Glover, 156 A.2d 114 (Pa. 1959). 2026White’s holding in this regard derives from 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9756(b)(1)’s general requirement, which mandates that a sentencing court “impose a minimum sentence of confinement which shall not exceed one-half of the -8- J-E02003-25 maximum sentence imposed,” as well as our Supreme Court’s 1959 opinion in Commonwealth v. Glover, 156 A.2d 114 (Pa. 1959). | 2 | 2026–2026 |
Housing Auth. v. PA CIVIL SERVICE COM'N
green
1 sentence2021Specifically, Section 6503 mandates that a person who commits a second or subsequent DUS violation under Section 1543(a)—a summary offense—may be sentenced to a term of imprisonment “‘of not more than six months.’” Id. at 20 (quoting 75 Pa.C.S. § 6503(a)-(a.1)). | 1 | 2021–2021 |
Commonwealth v. Downing
green
1 sentence2018Id. at 903, quoting Commonwealth v. Downing , 990 A.2d 788 , 794 (Pa.Super. 2010) (citations omitted). | 1 | 2018–2018 |
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.