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.
6 Pennsylvania opinions name it 1 courts 2016–2025 1 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. Bakergreen2 sentences2018See Baker, 72 A.3d at 662 . 2018Commonwealth v. Baker, 72 A.3d 652, 662 (Pa. Super. 2013) (citation omitted), appeal denied, 86 A.3d 231 (Pa. 2014). -2- J-S63025-18 Here, Appellant has failed to comply with first prong of the discretionary aspect test because he did not raise his sentencing issue at sentencing or in a post-sentence motion. | 2 | 2 |
Com. v. Watson, E.green1 sentence2025The standard of review with respect to sentencing is abuse of discretion, where “the appellant must establish, by reference to the record, that the sentencing court ignored or misapplied the law, exercised its judgement for reasons of partiality, prejudice, bias[,] or ill will, or arrived at a manifestly unreasonable decision.” Commonwealth v. Watson, 228 A.3d 928, 937 (Pa. Super. 2020) (citation omitted). | 1 | 1 |
Commonwealth v. Karnsgreen1 sentence2018See Commonwealth v. Karns, 50 A.3d 158 , 168 n.9 (Pa. Super. 2012) (“It is well settled that ‘when a challenge to the discretionary aspect of a sentence is raised, an appellant must provide a separate statement specifying where the sentence falls in the sentencing -3- J-S63025-18 has not properly preserved his discretionary sentencing claim and the issue is waived. | 1 | 1 |
Commonwealth v. Dodgegreen2 sentences2018“A defendant presents a substantial question when he sets forth a plausible argument that the sentence violates a provision of the sentencing code or is contrary to the fundamental norms of the sentencing process.” Commonwealth v. Dodge, 77 A.3d 1263, 1268 (Pa. Super. 2013) (quotations and citations omitted), appeal denied, 91 A.3d 161 (Pa. 2014). -8- J-S44024-18 Appellant has substantially complied with the first three prongs of the discretionary aspect test to invoke our jurisdiction. 2018“A defendant presents a substantial question when he sets forth a plausible argument that the sentence violates a provision of the sentencing code or is contrary to the fundamental norms of the sentencing process.” Commonwealth v. Dodge, 77 A.3d 1263, 1268 (Pa. Super. 2013) (quotations and citations omitted), appeal denied, 91 A.3d 161 (Pa. 2014). -8- J-S44024-18 Appellant has substantially complied with the first three prongs of the discretionary aspect test to invoke our jurisdiction. | 1 | 1 |
Commonwealth v. Corleygreen1 sentence2018However, Appellant has failed to meet the fourth prong because he has not presented a substantial question. “[W]here the sentencing court imposed a standard-range sentence with the benefit of a pre-sentence report, we will not consider the sentence excessive.” Commonwealth v. Corley, 31 A.3d 293, 298 (Pa. Super. 2011). | 1 | 1 |
Commonwealth v. Dalbertogreen1 sentence2016See Commonwealth v. Dalberto, 648 A.2d 16 (Pa. Super. 1994).) The PCRA court correctly concluded that Appellant failed to establish any exception to the PCRA’s time-bar. | 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.