Superior Court of Pennsylvania· 11/17/2008

Commonwealth v. Johnson

Citations

961 A.2d 877
2008 Pa. Super. 269
2008 Pa. Super. LEXIS 3927
2008 WL 4900850

How courts have described this case

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

holding that Apprendi was not violated when the trial court graded conviction based on facts that appellant’s counsel admitted during closing argument in the presence of jury
stating that “the imposition of consecutive rather than concurrent sentences lies within the sound discretion of the sentencing court.”
stating that imposition of consecutive as opposed to concurrent sentences is solely within sound discretion of trial court
observing that “an allegation that a sentencing court … did not adequately consider certain factors does not raise a substantial question that the sentence was -7- J-S08038-16 inappropriate.”
stating that “[l]ong standing precedent of this Court recognizes that 42 Pa.C.S.[A.] § 9721 affords the sentencing court discretion to impose its sentence concurrently or consecutively to other sentences being imposed at the same time or to sentences already imposed.”
stating, “an allegation that a sentencing court failed to consider or did not adequately consider certain [mitigating] factors does not raise a substantial question that the sentence was inappropriate”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Lally-Green, Shogan, Hudock

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

14 cases in this archive cite this case.

Cites

19 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.