Commonwealth v. Cummings

How courts have described this case

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

• concluding that Rule 2119(f) statement that did not include recitation of length of sentence, crime for which sentence was imposed and terms of sentence seeking to be reviewed did not invoke Superior Court’s jurisdiction to review discretionary aspects of sentence
• concluding that Rule 2119(f) statement that did not include recitation of length of sentence, crime for which sentence was imposed and terms of sentence seeking to be reviewed did not invoke Superior Court's jurisdiction to review discretionary aspects of sentence
• an appellant must include in his Rule 2119(f) statement the crime for which he was convicted and the length of the sentence imposed in order to warrant our review of the discretionary aspects of sentencing
• an appellant must include in his Rule 2119(f) statement the crime for which he was convicted and the length of the sentence imposed in order to warrant our review of the discretionary aspects of sentencing

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Cited by

5 cases in this archive cite this case.

• Commonwealth v. Goggins
  Superior Court of Pennsylvania· 2000-03-09· cited 383×
• Commonwealth v. Felix
  Supreme Court of Pennsylvania· 1988-03-14· cited 51×
• Commonwealth v. Ousley
  Supreme Court of Pennsylvania· 1990-04-18· cited 23×
• Commonwealth v. McFarlin
  Superior Court of Pennsylvania· 1991-03-07· cited 22×
• Commonwealth v. Vickers
  Superior Court of Pennsylvania· 1988-06-02· cited 2×