Commonwealth v. Smith

How courts have described this case

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

• “[I]n order to properly present a discretionary sentencing claim, [an appellant] is required to preserve the issue in either a post-sentence motion or at sentencing and in a court-ordered [Rule] 1925(b) concise statement.” (emphasis added, cleaned up)

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Cited by

2 cases in this archive cite this case.

• Commonwealth, Aplt. v. Smith, J.
  Supreme Court of Pennsylvania· 2018-06-01· cited 14×
• Com. v. Williamson, J.
  Superior Court of Pennsylvania· 2025-01-10

Cites

6 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

• Commonwealth v. Dodge
  Superior Court of Pennsylvania· 2013-09-11· cited 719×
• Commonwealth v. Buterbaugh
  Superior Court of Pennsylvania· 2014-05-13· cited 510×
• Commonwealth v. Rhoades
  Superior Court of Pennsylvania· 2010-11-12· cited 279×
• Commonwealth v. Zeigler
  Superior Court of Pennsylvania· 2015-03-20· cited 279×
• Commonwealth v. Bowen
  Superior Court of Pennsylvania· 1992-07-20· cited 21×
• Commonwealth v. Burns
  Supreme Court of Pennsylvania· 1990-01-17· cited 18×