Superior Court of Pennsylvania· 8/31/2017

Commonwealth v. Bullock

Citations

170 A.3d 1109

How courts have described this case

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

recognizing that a claim that a sentence is manifestly excessive challenges discretionary aspects of sentencing
recognizing that a claim that a sentence is manifestly excessive challenges discretionary aspects of sentencing
stating that where the sentencing court has and reviews a pre-sentence report, we “presume[] that the court [was] aware of all appropriate sentencing factors and considerations”
holding: a claim “that the sentencing court failed to consider mitigating factors in favor of a lesser sentence” is a challenge to the discretionary aspects of a sentence
holding claims that the sentence is manifestly excessive and the product of vindictiveness raise substantial questions. See also Commonwealth v. Barnes, 167 A.3d 110, 123 (Pa.Super. 2017) (en banc
finding that a challenge to a PRS implicates the discretionary aspects of a sentence

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Ott, Dubow, Stevens

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

14 cases in this archive cite this case.

Cites

39 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.