American Fire & Casualty Co. v. Muccio

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• concluding that the appellant’s challenge to the imposition of consecutive sentences was a challenge to the discretionary aspects of sentencing
• noting that an appellant must preserve a challenge to the discretionary aspects of his sentence in a timely post - sentence motion
• stating, “Pennsylvania law affords the sentencing court discretion to impose its sentence concurrently or consecutively to other sentences being imposed at the same time”
• stating, “Pennsylvania law affords the sentencing court discretion to impose its sentence concurrently or consecutively to other sentences being imposed at the same time”
• noting Appellant must preserve a challenge to the discretionary aspects of his sentence in a timely, post-sentence motion
• affirming aggregate judgment of sentence of thirty-five to seventy years of imprisonment for scores of convictions for possession of child pornography

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).