Commonwealth v. Moury

How courts have described this case

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

• stating that a standard guideline range sentence is not excessive or unreasonable where a PSI was reviewed, absent additional argument (citation omitted)
• noting that the appellant’s allegation that the sentencing court “refused to weigh the proposed mitigating factors as Appellant wished, absent more, does not raise a substantial question”
• stating that an “allegation that [the] sentencing court failed to consider or did not adequately consider certain factors generally does not raise a substantial question.” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)
• providing that sentencing issue must be preserved at sentencing or in post-sentence motion
• holding a sentence within the standard range of the guidelines is viewed as appropriate, and the sentence is not unreasonable where the trial court had the benefit of a PSI and imposed a standard range sentence
• holding a sentence within the standard range of the guidelines is viewed as appropriate, and the sentence is not unreasonable where the trial court had the benefit of a PSI and imposed a standard range sentence

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).