Commonwealth v. Myers

How courts have described this case

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

• finding appellant raised a substantial question by arguing the sentencing court abused its discretion by failing to set forth adequate reasons to justify the disparity between his sentence and that of his co- defendant
• “A sentencing court is not required to impose the same sentence on all participants in a crime.”
• Meyers raised a substantial question when arguing that, “the sentencing court abused its discretion by failing to set forth adequate reasons to justify the disparity between his sentence and that of his co-defendant.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Cited by

5 cases in this archive cite this case.

• Commonwealth v. Canfield
  Superior Court of Pennsylvania· 1994-03-04· cited 31×
• Commonwealth v. Szczesniewski
  Superior Court of Pennsylvania· 1991-04-15· cited 16×
• Commonwealth v. Ellison
  Superior Court of Pennsylvania· 2012-03-02· cited 1×
• Commonwealth v. Lazar
  Lancaster County Court of Common Pleas· 2007-11-05
• Commonwealth v. White
  Lancaster County Court of Common Pleas· 2009-06-09

Cites

8 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

• Commonwealth v. Tuladziecki
  Supreme Court of Pennsylvania· 1987-03-10· cited 739×
• Commonwealth v. Sessoms
  Supreme Court of Pennsylvania· 1987-10-07· cited 159×
• Commonwealth v. Krum
  Supreme Court of Pennsylvania· 1987-11-02· cited 142×
• Commonwealth v. Sinwell
  Superior Court of Pennsylvania· 1983-03-11· cited 42×
• Commonwealth v. Craft
  Superior Court of Pennsylvania· 1982-09-24· cited 35×
• Commonwealth v. Tilghman
  Supreme Court of Pennsylvania· 1987-09-01· cited 33×
• Commonwealth v. Holler
  Supreme Court of Pennsylvania· 1984-03-30· cited 22×
• Commonwealth v. Velez
  Supreme Court of Pennsylvania· 1984-06-19· cited 5×