Superior Court of Pennsylvania· 1/6/2015

Commonwealth v. Tejada

Citations

107 A.3d 788
2015 Pa. Super. 2
2015 Pa. Super. LEXIS 2
2015 WL 62931

How courts have described this case

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

holding that where an appellant fails to preserve discretionary aspects of sentencing claims at sentencing or in a post- sentence motion, those claims are not subject to appellate review
holding that, where the defendant “challeng[ed] only the purported excessiveness of his sentence” at the post-sentence motion stage, the defendant did not preserve the following four discretionary aspects of sentencing claims on appeal: “(1
holding that, because the defendant had failed to preserve the arguments in support of his discretionary aspects of sentencing claim at his sentencing or in his post- sentence motion, they were not subject to appellate review.
noting that the trial court must be given the opportunity to reconsider its sentence either at sentencing or in a post-sentence motion
noting that the trial court must be given the opportunity to reconsider its sentence either at sentencing or in a post- sentence motion
noting that the trial court must be given the opportunity to reconsider its sentence either at sentencing or in a post-sentence motion

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Donohue, Wecht, Platt

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

24 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Cites

18 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

Other cases named Commonwealth v. Tejada

4 other CourtListener records share this case 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.