Commonwealth v. Rhoades

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that two convictions for aggravated assault, 18 Pa.C.S. § 2702(a)(1) and (a)(4), did not merge because subsection four requires the use of a deadly weapon and subsection one does not
• concluding that “an intact glass bottle constituted a deadly weapon” under the circumstances
• concluding that a defendant who received a standard-range sentence did not raise a substantial question when challenging the sentencing court’s alleged failure to consider mitigating factors
• concluding that a defendant who received - 23 - J-S10042-22 a standard-range sentence did not raise a substantial question when challenging the sentencing court’s alleged failure to consider mitigating factors
• holding that, when “the sentencing court had the benefit of a pre-sentence investigation report, we can assume the sentencing court was aware of relevant information regarding the defendant's character and weighed those considerations”
• concluding that the offenses listed in § 2702(a)(1) and (a)(4

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).