2003 Pa. Super. 57 - Commonwealth v. McNabb’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

26 state decisions

Most-quoted passages

The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 26 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “Our standard of review in an appeal from the discretionary aspects of a sentence is well settled: Sentencing is a matter vested in the sound discretion of the sentencing judge, and a sentence will not be disturbed on appeal absent a manifest abuse of discretion. An abuse of discretion is more than just an error in judgment and, on appeal, the trial court will not be found to have abused its discretion unless the record discloses that the judgment exercised was manifestly unreasonable, or the result of partiality, bias or ill-will. Commonwealth v. Hess, 745 A.2d 29, 30-31 (Pa.Super.2000), quoting Commonwealth v. Burkholder, 719 A.2d 346, 350 , (Pa.Super.1998). There is, however, no absolute right to appeal the discretionary aspects of a sentence. Commonwealth v. Mouzon, 571 Pa. 419 , 812 A.2d 617 (2002), 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9781, Appellate Review of Sentence (b). Rule 2119, Argument (f) of the Pennsylvania Rules of Appellate Procedure requires an appellant challenging the discretionary aspects of a sentence to “set forth in his brief a concise statement of the reasons relied upon for allowance of appeal with respect to the discretionary aspects of a sentence.” Pa.R.A.P. 2119(f)- Bald allegations of excessiveness are insufficient. Mouzon, supra. Rather, the appellant must demonstrate in this statement that a substantial question exists concerning the sentence. A substantial question exists where the statement sets forth a plausible argument that the sentence violates a particular pr”

   4 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 2004 Pa. Super. 238 - Commonwealth v. Reyes · Commonwealth v. Hart

2. “3” and a "Prior Record Score” of "5” resulting in a standard guideline range of six to sixteen months, plus or minus three months in the aggravated and mitigated ranges, respectively. Appellant’s minimum sentence was two and one-half years or thirty months, clearly in excess of the guideline ranges which, in the aggravated range, was nineteen months. We will, therefore, ignore Appellant’s misstatement. 2 . The Commonwealth, in its brief filed on April 4, 2003, incorrectly asserts that there is no substantial question presented by Simpson because the sentences are within the statutory limits. Brief for Appellee, at 4. "|T]he Pennsylvania Supreme Court in its December 19, 2002. Mouzon decision, held that a claim for excessiveness raised against a sentence within the statutory limits does not fail to raise a substantial question as a matter of law.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 2003 Pa. Super. 260 - Commonwealth v. Simpson