Superior Court of Pennsylvania· 12/31/2009

Commonwealth v. Rhodes

Citations

990 A.2d 732
2009 Pa. Super. 261
2009 Pa. Super. LEXIS 4996
2009 WL 5153914

How courts have described this case

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

holding: a claim that the trial court relied upon impermissible factors at sentencing is a challenge to the discretionary aspects of a sentence
stating that “a party’s call for recusal need not be based only upon discreet incidents, but may also assert the cumulative effect of a judge’s remarks and conduct even though no single act creates an appearance of bias or impropriety.”
resentencing required where defendant did not have notice court would be considering police reports not introduced to the record or disclosed to counsel
analyzing the appellant’s improper considerations claims of erroneous information and false assumptions under a discretionary aspects of sentence framework
finding claim that the trial court impermissibly relied on uncharged crimes and conduct raised a substantial question
stating that “a tribunal is either fair or unfair”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Elliott, Melvin, Bender

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

11 cases in this archive cite this case.

Cites

30 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.