Skip to main content

Commonwealth v. Berry

Citations

  • 785 A.2d 994
  • 2001 Pa. Super. 283
  • 2001 Pa. Super. LEXIS 2709

How courts have described this case

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

  • concluding that a claim that the sentencing court did not consider rehabilitative needs of juvenile defendant tried as an adult did not raise a substantial question for purposes of appeal
  • explaining that an allegation that the sentencing court failed to consider certain sentencing factors generally does not raise a substantial question
  • holding (Footnote Continued Next Page) -7- J-S27021-16 For all of the foregoing reasons, we affirm. Affirmed. Judgment Entered. Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq. Prothonotary Date: 7/22/2016 (Footnote Continued
  • holding claim that sentencing court ignored appellant’s rehabilitative needs failed to raise substantial question
  • holding claim that sentencing court ignored appellant’s rehabilitative needs failed to raise substantial question
  • holding claim that sentencing court ignored appellant’s rehabilitative needs failed to raise substantial question

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Beck, Cavanaugh, Hester

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

6 cases in this archive cite this case.

Cites

6 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

Other cases with this name

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.