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 2007–2025 2 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. Gogginsgreen2 sentences2018Commonwealth v. Goggins, 748 A.2d 721, 727 (Pa.Super. 2000) (en banc), appeal denied, -7- J-S01036-18 563 Pa. 672 , 759 A.2d 920 (2000). 2018Commonwealth v. Goggins, 748 A.2d 721, 727 (Pa.Super. 2000) (en banc), appeal denied, -7- J-S01036-18 563 Pa. 672 , 759 A.2d 920 (2000). | 2 | 2 |
Commonwealth v. Mrozikgreen1 sentence2025See id. - 11 - J-A10030-25 N.T., 12/5/2023, at 16-17. | 1 | 1 |
Commonwealth v. Griffingreen1 sentence2022Commonwealth v. Antidormi, 84 A.3d 736, 759 (Pa.Super. 2014) (concluding claim that court imposed sentence outside the standard range without stating adequate reasons presents a substantial question); Commonwealth v. Griffin, 804 A.2d 1, 7 (Pa.Super. 2002) (finding a claim the court imposed an unreasonable sentence outside the guidelines raises a substantial question). | 1 | 1 |
Commonwealth v. Antidormigreen1 sentence2022Commonwealth v. Antidormi, 84 A.3d 736, 759 (Pa.Super. 2014) (concluding claim that court imposed sentence outside the standard range without stating adequate reasons presents a substantial question); Commonwealth v. Griffin, 804 A.2d 1, 7 (Pa.Super. 2002) (finding a claim the court imposed an unreasonable sentence outside the guidelines raises a substantial question). | 1 | 1 |
Commonwealth v. Saundersgreen1 sentence2019The Court held that because Pennsylvania’s sentencing guidelines are merely advisory, and “[b]ecause the statutory maximum is the polestar for Sixth Amendment purposes, a judge may impose a sentence outside the [standard guidelines range] without unconstitutionally increasing the punishment for a crime based on judicially-determined facts as long as the maximum sentence imposed does not exceed the statutory limit.” 923 A.2d at 1119 (footnote omitted); accord Commonwealth v. Saunders, 946 A.2d 776, 788 (Pa.Super. 2008) (“where the statutory maximum is not exceeded, a trial court’s reliance upon | 1 | 1 |
Commonwealth v. Yuhaszgreen2 sentences2019The Court held that because Pennsylvania’s sentencing guidelines are merely advisory, and “[b]ecause the statutory maximum is the polestar for Sixth Amendment purposes, a judge may impose a sentence outside the [standard guidelines range] without unconstitutionally increasing the punishment for a crime based on judicially-determined facts as long as the maximum sentence imposed does not exceed the statutory limit.” 923 A.2d at 1119 (footnote omitted); accord Commonwealth v. Saunders, 946 A.2d 776, 788 (Pa.Super. 2008) (“where the statutory maximum is not exceeded, a trial court’s reliance upon 2019The Court held that because Pennsylvania’s sentencing guidelines are merely advisory, and “[b]ecause the statutory maximum is the polestar for Sixth Amendment purposes, a judge may impose a sentence outside the [standard guidelines range] without unconstitutionally increasing the punishment for a crime based on judicially-determined facts as long as the maximum sentence imposed does not exceed the statutory limit.” 923 A.2d at 1119 (footnote omitted); accord Commonwealth v. Saunders, 946 A.2d 776, 788 (Pa.Super. 2008) (“where the statutory maximum is not exceeded, a trial court’s reliance upon | 1 | 1 |
Metropolitan Life Insurance v. Bodgegreen2 sentences2008Co. v. Bodge, 385 Pa.Super. 77 , 560 A.2d 175, 181 (1989), we stated: "The Statutory Construction Act, . . . requires that every statute or regulation `be construed, if possible, to give effect to all its provisions.' 1 Pa.C.S. § 1921(a) (emphasis supplied)." [12] The only other restriction of significance is 42 Pa.C.S. § 9756, which requires the court to impose both a minimum and maximum term of imprisonment and which compels the maximum sentence be at least twice that of the minimum sentence. [13] That the United States Supreme Court viewed a sentencing enhancement as permissive and not mand 2008Co. v. Bodge, 385 Pa.Super. 77 , 560 A.2d 175, 181 (1989), we stated: "The Statutory Construction Act, . . . requires that every statute or regulation `be construed, if possible, to give effect to all its provisions.' 1 Pa.C.S. § 1921(a) (emphasis supplied)." [12] The only other restriction of significance is 42 Pa.C.S. § 9756, which requires the court to impose both a minimum and maximum term of imprisonment and which compels the maximum sentence be at least twice that of the minimum sentence. [13] That the United States Supreme Court viewed a sentencing enhancement as permissive and not mand | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Pennsylvania. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Blakely v. Washington
green
2 sentences2008That the United States Supreme Court viewed a sentencing enhancement as permissive and not mandatory is established by the Court’s statement "[a] judge may impose a sentence above the standard range....” Blakely, 542 U.S. at 299 , 124 S.Ct. 2531 (emphasis added). 2008That the United States Supreme Court viewed a sentencing enhancement as permissive and not mandatory is established by the Court’s statement "[a] judge may impose a sentence above the standard range....” Blakely, 542 U.S. at 299 , 124 S.Ct. 2531 (emphasis added). | 2 | 2007–2008 |
Cunningham v. California
green
2 sentences2008Similarly, in Cunningham v. California,-U.S.-, 127 S.Ct. 856, 865 , 166 L.Ed.2d 856 (2007), the Court stated: "The State in Blakely had endeavored to distinguish Apprendi on the ground that 'under the Washington guidelines, an exceptional sentence is within the court’s discretion as a result of a guilty verdict.' ” Washington law further establishes that the imposition of an exceptional sentence was discretionary with the court. 2008Similarly, in Cunningham v. California,-U.S.-, 127 S.Ct. 856, 865 , 166 L.Ed.2d 856 (2007), the Court stated: "The State in Blakely had endeavored to distinguish Apprendi on the ground that 'under the Washington guidelines, an exceptional sentence is within the court’s discretion as a result of a guilty verdict.' ” Washington law further establishes that the imposition of an exceptional sentence was discretionary with the court. | 1 | 2008–2008 |
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.