City of Hialeah v. State

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that “a bald claim of excessiveness … will not raise a substantial question”
• clarifying that “a bald claim of excessiveness due to the consecutive nature of a sentence will not raise a substantial question”
• finding that a claim of a sentencing court’s reliance upon impermissible factors in fashioning a sentence implicates the discretionary aspects of sentencing
• stating that a claim of a trial court’s reliance upon impermissible factors in fashioning a sentence implicates the discretionary aspects of sentence
• holding claim that trial court failed to consider mitigating factors in conjunction with claim that the aggregate sentence of consecutive, standard-range sentences was excessive, presented a substantial question
• finding that “[a]ppellant’s claim that the [trial] court disregarded rehabilitation and the nature and circumstances of the offense in handing down its sentence presents a substantial question for our review.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).