Khan v. Blinken

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that imposition of a sentence is vested in the discretion of the sentencing court and will not be disturbed unless there is a clear abuse of discretion
• finding that Section 9781(f) precludes our Court from reviewing discretionary aspects of sentencing but does not preclude review of the application of legal principles
• finding that Section 9781(f) precludes our Court from reviewing discretionary aspects of sentencing but does not preclude review of the application of legal principles
• concluding that even though court referred to an impermissible -9- J-S94035-16 sentencing factor, the sentence must be affirmed where court had independently valid reasons for departing from standard range sentence
• reasoning that Section 9781(f) does not preclude review of legal principles
• determining that even if a sentencing court relies on a factor that should not have been considered, there is no abuse of discretion where the court provides significant additional support for its departure from the sentencing guidelines

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).