Superior Court of Pennsylvania· 1/14/2005

Commonwealth v. Bullock

Citations

868 A.2d 516
2005 Pa. Super. 16
2005 Pa. Super. LEXIS 16

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 failed to raise a substantial question as to his claim of inadequate consideration of mitigating factors where he did not explain in his Rule 2119(f
stating that a claim of inadequate consideration of mitigating factors does not raise a substantial question for our review
stating “a claim of inadequate consideration of mitigating factors does not raise a substantial question for our review”
where no specific provision of sentencing code or fundamental norm is identified in claim that court failed to consider mitigating factors, no substantial question raised
where no specific provision of sentencing code or fundamental norm is identified in claim that court failed to consider mitigating factors, no substantial question raised
“A Rule 2119(f) statement that simply contains incantations of statutory provisions and pronouncements of conclusions of law is inadequate.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Bender, Panella, Montemuro

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

18 cases in this archive cite this case.

Cites

30 cases in this archive are cited by this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

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.