Commonwealth v. Malovich

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that failure to file post-trial -8- J-S76043-16 motions did not waive appellate issues where trial court did not advise appellant of the need to preserve issues by motion
• concluding that challenge to the discretionary aspects of sentencing following a probation revocation was waived due to the -5- J-S14033-15 defendant’s failure to preserve the issue at sentencing or in a post-sentence motion
• holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in imposing total confinement due to technical violations and concluding that the \[a]ppellant was not responding to the court's authority; incarceration was necessary.\
• holding that the trial court properly considered the statutory sentencing factors, prior probation violations, and that the defendant was not responding to the court’s authority, accordingly, it did not abuse its discretion in imposing total confinement due to technical probation violations
• holding substantial question presented by claim that the sentence was excessive in proportion to the offenses
• explaining that \a claim that a particular probation revocation sentence is excessive in light of its underlying technical violations\ presents a substantial question

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).