Commonwealth v. Brougher

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that, even though defendant failed to include a Rule 2119(f) statement with respect to the discretionary aspects of a sentence in his brief, defendant's claims were not waived since the Commonwealth failed to object to the statement's absence
• finding that “point[ing] an air-soft pistol that looked like a real firearm ... during the course of a robbery” satisfied this element
• stating that “claims relating to the discretionary aspects of a sentence are waived if an appellant does not include a Pa.R.A.P. 2119(f) statement in his brief and the opposing party objects to the statement’s absence.”
• determining Commonwealth’s failure to object to absence of appellant’s Rule 2119(f) statement does not require waiver of appellant’s discretionary aspects of sentencing claim
• addressing discretionary aspects of sentencing claim despite appellant’s failure to include Rule 2119(f) statement because Commonwealth did not object to defective brief
• declining to find waiver for absence of Rule 2119(f) statement where Commonwealth has not objected

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).