Supreme Court of Pennsylvania· 3/29/1990

Commonwealth v. McLaughlin

Citations

574 A.2d 610
393 Pa. Super. 277
1990 Pa. Super. LEXIS 774

How courts have described this case

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

observing that an informal conference does not have “the import of a trial proceeding [or hearing] … [that] would make Pa.R.A.P. 1923 applicable”
affirming imposition of four mandatory minimum sentences to convictions stemming from McLaughlin’s firing of a shotgun in a bar, killing one person and injuring three others
stating that inflammatory statements in a PSI report are “unlikely to have a significant effect on an experienced trial judge” and that a sentence proportional to the seriousness of the charges reflects a lack of unwarranted influence of any such statement on the judge
a substantial question arises when appellant can show \actions by the sentencing court inconsistent with the sentencing code or contrary to the fundamental norms underlying the sentencing process ...\
a substantial question arises when appellant can show “actions by the sentencing court inconsistent with the sentencing code or contrary to the fundamental norms underlying the sentencing process ... ”
in turn citing 18 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 2705

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Cavanaugh, Tamilia, Hester

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

19 cases in this archive cite this case.

Cites

21 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.