Pennsylvania Consolidated Statutes

42 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 9781 (2026)

Appellate review of sentence.

✓ current as of May 2026

Coverage note: this corpus holds the consolidated Pa.C.S. titles only. Unconsolidated P.S. statutes (UTPCPL 73 P.S. § 201-1, Liquor Code, wage payment laws) are not included; a miss here does not mean the statute does not exist. Check palegis.us.

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section PA-LEGpalegis.us JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

SUBCHAPTER G

APPELLATE REVIEW OF SENTENCE

Sec.

9781. Appellate review of sentence.

Prior Provisions. Former Subchapter G of Title 18 (Crimes and Offenses), which related to Pennsylvania Commission on Sentencing, was added November 26, 1978, P.L.1316, No.319, and repealed October 5, 1980, P.L.693, No.142, effective in 60 days, except for section 1386 of Title 18 which was renumbered and transferred to section 9781 of Title 42. The subject matter of the repealed provisions is now contained in Subchapter F of Chapter 21.

§ 9781. Appellate review of sentence.

(a) Right to appeal.--The defendant or the Commonwealth may appeal as of right the legality of the sentence.

(b) Allowance of appeal.--The defendant or the Commonwealth may file a petition for allowance of appeal of the discretionary aspects of a sentence for a felony or a misdemeanor to the appellate court that has initial jurisdiction for such appeals. Allowance of appeal may be granted at the discretion of the appellate court where it appears that there is a substantial question that the sentence imposed is not appropriate under this chapter.

(c) Determination on appeal.--The appellate court shall vacate the sentence and remand the case to the sentencing court with instructions if it finds:

(1) the sentencing court purported to sentence within the sentencing guidelines but applied the guidelines erroneously;

(2) the sentencing court sentenced within the sentencing guidelines but the case involves circumstances where the application of the guidelines would be clearly unreasonable; or

(3) the sentencing court sentenced outside the sentencing guidelines and the sentence is unreasonable.

In all other cases the appellate court shall affirm the sentence imposed by the sentencing court.

(d) Review of record.--In reviewing the record the appellate court shall have regard for:

(1) The nature and circumstances of the offense and the history and characteristics of the defendant.

(2) The opportunity of the sentencing court to observe the defendant, including any presentence investigation.

(3) The findings upon which the sentence was based.

(4) The guidelines promulgated by the commission.

(e) Right to bail not enlarged.--Nothing in this chapter shall be construed to enlarge the defendant's right to bail pending appeal.

(f) Limitation on additional appellate review.--No appeal of the discretionary aspects of the sentence shall be permitted beyond the appellate court that has initial jurisdiction for such appeals.

(g) Implementing rules of court.--(Repealed).

(Oct. 5, 1980, P.L.693, No.142, eff. 60 days)

1980 Repeal. Act 142 repealed subsec. (g).

Effective Date. Section 218(b) of Act 142 of 1980 provided that the provisions of 18 Pa.C.S. § 1386 (redesignated by Act 142 as 42 Pa.C.S. § 9781) shall take effect upon the effective date of initial sentencing guidelines pursuant to 42 Pa.C.S. § 2155(c). The initial sentencing guidelines, as revised, were adopted January 5, 1982, and became effective July 22, 1982.

Cross References. Section 9781 is referred to in section 724 of this title.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 1,059 cases (352 in the last 5 years), 1981–2026 · leading case: Commonwealth v. Mouzon, 812 A.2d 617 (Pa. 2002).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Commonwealth v. Mouzon, 812 A.2d 617 (Pa. 2002). · cites it 16× “In a memorandum opinion filed May 23, 2001, the Superior Court concluded that Appellant failed to raise a substantial question warranting appellate review, and therefore, declined to review the merits of his claim.”

Commonwealth v. Walls, 926 A.2d 957 (Pa. 2007). · cites it 14× “§ 9721(b), and require appellate courts to vacate sentences deemed unreasonable, 42 Pa.C.S. § 9781. These provisions require an appellate court to determine whether the reasons given by a trial court provide a reasonable rationale for deviating from the guidelines.”

Commonwealth v. Dodge, 77 A.3d 1263 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2013). · cites it 11× “”); Mastromarino, supra; Gonzalez-Dejusus, supra; Dodge II, supra; 42 Pa.C.S. § 9781; Mouzon, supra; Id. at 628 (Castille, J.”

Commonwealth v. Coulverson, 34 A.3d 135 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2011). · cites it 10× “Thus, pursuant to the statutory authority reposed in this Court under 42 Pa.C.S. § 9781(b), (f), we are constrained to vacate the judgment of sentence and remand this case to the trial court for re-calculation of the sentence, including, but not limited to the sentence imposed…”

Commonwealth v. Smith, 673 A.2d 893 (Pa. 1996). · cites it 16× “This section provides, in pertinent part, that an appellate court shall vacate a sentence and remand to the sentencing court if "the sentencing court sentenced outside the sentencing guidelines and the sentence is unreasonable.”

Commonwealth v. Cartrette, 83 A.3d 1030 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2013). · cites it 5× “See 42 Pa.C.S. § 9781(a). Furthermore, as the Superior Court aptly noted, the scope of review in an appeal following a sentence imposed after probation revocation is limited to the validity of the revocation proceedings and the legality of the sentence imposed following…”

Com. v. Lawrence, D., 313 A.3d 265 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2024). · cites it 6× “Additionally, our review of the discretionary aspects of a sentence is confined by the statutory mandates of 42 Pa.C.S. § 9781(c) and (d). Subsection 9781(c) provides: The appellate court shall vacate the sentence and remand the case to the sentencing court with instructions if…”

Com. v. Pisarchuk, I., 306 A.3d 872 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2023). · cites it 8× “Additionally, our review of the discretionary aspects of a sentence is confined by the statutory mandates of 42 Pa.C.S. § 9781(c) and (d). Subsection 9781(c) provides: The appellate court shall vacate the sentence and remand the case to the sentencing court with instructions if…”

Commonwealth v. Krum, 533 A.2d 134 (Pa. 1987). · cites it 10× “902 the proper procedure to be followed in cases brought under Section 9781(b) has been explained as follows: Section 9781 of the Sentencing Code (42 Pa.C.S. § 9781) provides that the defendant or the Commonwealth may file a "petition for allowance of appeal" of the…”

Commonwealth v. Raven, 97 A.3d 1244 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2014). · cites it 4× “42 Pa.C.S. § 9781(b). A substantial question requires a showing that “the sentence violates either a specific provision of the sentencing scheme set forth in the Sentencing Code or a particular fundamental norm underlying the sentencing process.”

Commonwealth v. Rigg, 84 A.3d 1080 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2014). · cites it 4× “It highlights that under 42 Pa.C.S. § 9781(f), the Pennsylvania Supreme Court cannot grant a defendant’s appeal of the discretionary aspects of his sentence in order to review the actual sentence.”

Com. v. Schroat, S., 272 A.3d 523 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2022). · cites it 6× “-4- J-S49030-20 that the sentence appealed from is not appropriate under the Sentencing Code, 42 Pa.C.S. § 9781(b), or sentencing norms.”

Show all 1,059 citing cases →

— 42 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 9781(1) — 2 cases

Com. v. Peck, M., Jr., 202 A.3d 739 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2019).

Com. v. Baker, E. (Pa. Super. Ct. 2020).

— 42 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 9781(3) — 1 case

Com. v. Hankerson, T. (Pa. Super. Ct. 2016).

— 42 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 9781(a) — 40 cases

Commonwealth v. Mouzon, 812 A.2d 617 (Pa. 2002). “In a memorandum opinion filed May 23, 2001, the Superior Court concluded that Appellant failed to raise a substantial question warranting appellate review, and therefore, declined to review the merits of his claim.”

Commonwealth v. Shiffler, 879 A.2d 185 (Pa. 2005).

Commonwealth v. McClintic, 909 A.2d 1241 (Pa. 2006).

Commonwealth v. Cartrette, 83 A.3d 1030 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2013). “See 42 Pa.C.S. § 9781(a). Furthermore, as the Superior Court aptly noted, the scope of review in an appeal following a sentence imposed after probation revocation is limited to the validity of the revocation proceedings and the legality of the sentence imposed following…”

Commonwealth v. Bradley, 834 A.2d 1127 (Pa. 2003).

— 42 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 9781(b) — 481 cases

Commonwealth, Aplt. v. Wolfe, M., 140 A.3d 651 (Pa. 2016).

Commonwealth v. Coulverson, 34 A.3d 135 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2011). “Thus, pursuant to the statutory authority reposed in this Court under 42 Pa.C.S. § 9781(b), (f), we are constrained to vacate the judgment of sentence and remand this case to the trial court for re-calculation of the sentence, including, but not limited to the sentence imposed…”

Commonwealth v. Goggins, 748 A.2d 721 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2000).

Commonwealth v. Gambal, 561 A.2d 710 (Pa. 1989).

— 42 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 9781(c) — 260 cases

Commonwealth v. Walls, 926 A.2d 957 (Pa. 2007). “§ 9721(b), and require appellate courts to vacate sentences deemed unreasonable, 42 Pa.C.S. § 9781. These provisions require an appellate court to determine whether the reasons given by a trial court provide a reasonable rationale for deviating from the guidelines.”

Com. v. Lawrence, D., 313 A.3d 265 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2024). “Additionally, our review of the discretionary aspects of a sentence is confined by the statutory mandates of 42 Pa.C.S. § 9781(c) and (d). Subsection 9781(c) provides: The appellate court shall vacate the sentence and remand the case to the sentencing court with instructions if…”

Commonwealth v. Dodge, 77 A.3d 1263 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2013). “”); Mastromarino, supra; Gonzalez-Dejusus, supra; Dodge II, supra; 42 Pa.C.S. § 9781; Mouzon, supra; Id. at 628 (Castille, J.”

Com. v. Pisarchuk, I., 306 A.3d 872 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2023). “Additionally, our review of the discretionary aspects of a sentence is confined by the statutory mandates of 42 Pa.C.S. § 9781(c) and (d). Subsection 9781(c) provides: The appellate court shall vacate the sentence and remand the case to the sentencing court with instructions if…”

— 42 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 9781(c)(1) — 20 cases

Com. v. Derrickson, R., 242 A.3d 667 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2020).

Commonwealth v. Pokorny, 520 A.2d 511 (Pa. 1987).

Commonwealth v. Solomon, 151 A.3d 672 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2016).

Commonwealth v. Tilghman, 531 A.2d 441 (Pa. 1987).

Com. v. Derrickson, R., 2020 Pa. Super. 264 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2020).

— 42 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 9781(c)(2) — 149 cases

Commonwealth v. Dodge, 77 A.3d 1263 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2013). “”); Mastromarino, supra; Gonzalez-Dejusus, supra; Dodge II, supra; 42 Pa.C.S. § 9781; Mouzon, supra; Id. at 628 (Castille, J.”

Commonwealth v. Sarvey, 199 A.3d 436 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2018).

Com. v. Miller, J., 275 A.3d 530 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2022).

— 42 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 9781(c)(3) — 86 cases

Commonwealth v. Smith, 673 A.2d 893 (Pa. 1996). “This section provides, in pertinent part, that an appellate court shall vacate a sentence and remand to the sentencing court if "the sentencing court sentenced outside the sentencing guidelines and the sentence is unreasonable.”

Commonwealth v. P.L.S., 894 A.2d 120 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2006).

Commonwealth v. Bullock, 170 A.3d 1109 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2017).

Commonwealth v. Kleinicke, 895 A.2d 562 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2006).

— 42 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 9781(c)(l) — 1 case

Commonwealth v. Klueber, 904 A.2d 911 (Pa. 2006).

— 42 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 9781(d) — 270 cases

Com. v. Schroat, S., 272 A.3d 523 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2022). “-4- J-S49030-20 that the sentence appealed from is not appropriate under the Sentencing Code, 42 Pa.C.S. § 9781(b), or sentencing norms.”

Commonwealth v. Durazo, 210 A.3d 316 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2019).

Commonwealth v. Dodge, 77 A.3d 1263 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2013). “”); Mastromarino, supra; Gonzalez-Dejusus, supra; Dodge II, supra; 42 Pa.C.S. § 9781; Mouzon, supra; Id. at 628 (Castille, J.”

— 42 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 9781(d)(1) — 32 cases

Com. v. Carr, S., 2021 Pa. Super. 174 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2021).

Commonwealth v. Wilson, 946 A.2d 767 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2008).

Com. v. Hauser, C. (Pa. Super. Ct. 2020).

Com. v. Walters, S. (Pa. Super. Ct. 2021).

— 42 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 9781(d)(2) — 1 case

Com. v. Acevedo-Solano, P. (Pa. Super. Ct. 2023).

— 42 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 9781(d)(3) — 3 cases

Commonwealth v. Bullicki, 513 A.2d 990 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1986).

Com. v. Hauser, C. (Pa. Super. Ct. 2020).

Com. v. Rosario, K. (Pa. Super. Ct. 2023).

— 42 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 9781(d)(4) — 1 case

Com. v. Rosario, K. (Pa. Super. Ct. 2023).

— 42 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 9781(e) — 1 case

Commonwealth v. Bricker, 41 A.3d 872 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2012).

— 42 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 9781(e)(3) — 1 case

Commonwealth v. Gibson, 716 A.2d 1275 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1998).

— 42 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 9781(f) — 33 cases

Commonwealth v. Rigg, 84 A.3d 1080 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2014). “It highlights that under 42 Pa.C.S. § 9781(f), the Pennsylvania Supreme Court cannot grant a defendant’s appeal of the discretionary aspects of his sentence in order to review the actual sentence.”

Commonwealth v. Shiffler, 879 A.2d 185 (Pa. 2005).

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.