Commonwealth v. Urrutia

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that evidence of appellant attacking a victim twice in one day was sufficient to prove course of conduct beyond a reasonable doubt under 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 2709(f)
• allegation that sentencing court “failed to consider” or “did not adequately consider” certain factors does not raise substantial question that sentence was inappropriate
• course of conduct by its very nature requires showing of repetitive pattern of behavior and, therefore, where evidence of prior bad acts is necessary to establish the pattern, the evidence is admissible
• course of conduct by its very nature requires showing of repetitive pattern of behavior and, therefore, where evidence of prior bad acts is necessary to establish the pattern, the evidence is admissible
• “An allegation that a sentencing court failed to consider or did not adequately consider certain factors does not raise a substantial question that the sentence was inappropriate.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).