Commonwealth v. McNabb

How courts have described this case

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

• concluding that the appellant’s claim that the trial court did not adequately state its reasons for imposing the sentence raised a substantial question
• stating that “factors already used in Sentencing Guideline computations . . . may not be used to justify an aggravated sentence.”
• concluding appellant’s claim that sentencing court did not sufficiently state its reasons for imposing sentence raised a substantial question
• stating that a claim that a sentencing court relied on impermissible factors constitutes a challenge to the discretionary aspects of sentencing
• stating that the appellant “raise[d] a substantial -3- J-S75042-18 question by alleging that the sentencing court did not sufficiently state its reasons for the sentence.”
• stating that “a substantial question exists where the statement sets forth a plausible argument that the sentence … is contrary to the fundamental norms underlying the sentencing scheme.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).