Kilgore v. Pure Oil Co.

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that the PIC statute does not require that a crime be completed; the focus is on whether the defendant possesses the instrument for any criminal purpose
• stating a defendant presents a substantial question when he “sets forth a plausible -6- J-S29027-22 argument that the sentence violates a provision of the sentencing code or is contrary to the fundamental norms of the sentencing process.”
• failure to state sufficient reasons for imposing sentence outside sentencing guidelines raises substantial question that sentence was not appropriate under sentencing code
• “The Rule 2119(f) statement must specify . . . . what particular provision of the Code is violated”
• “to properly present a discretionary sentencing claim, a defendant is required to preserve the issue in either a post-sentence motion or at sentencing and in a court-ordered Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) concise statement”
• “Juries are presumed to follow a court’s instructions.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).