# Commonwealth v. Chilcote

> Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · July 20, 1990 · 396 Pa. Super. 106

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9703228

## Case

- **Full name:** COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania, Appellee, v. Randall J. CHILCOTE, Appellant
- **Court:** Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
- **Decided:** July 20, 1990
- **Citations:** 396 Pa. Super. 106; 578 A.2d 429; 1990 Pa. Super. LEXIS 1407
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Popovich
- **Judges:** Rowley, Popovich, Hudock
- **Cited by:** 30 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9703228

## Opinion text

POPOVICH, Judge,
concurring.
I write separately to note my disagreement with the majority’s conclusion that “42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9781 does not clearly, palpably, and plainly violate our State Constitution.” (Opinion at 440) Rather, I am convinced that § 9781 violates the absolute right of a defendant to appeal his sentence pursuant to the Pennsylvania Constitution, Article 5, § 9 which provides:
There shall be a right of appeal in all cases to a court of record from a court not of record; and there shall also be a right of appeal from a court of record or from an administrative agency to a court of record or to an appellate court, the selection of such court to be as provided by law; and there shall be such other rights of appeal as may be provided by law.
My opinion leads me to agree with my distinguished colleague, Judge Joseph Del Sole, who, in his concurring *131 opinion in Commonwealth v. Barnes, 388 Pa.Super. 327, 333 , 565 A.2d 777, 781 (1989), also concluded, “... 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9781(b) violates Article 5, Section 9 of the Pennsylvania Constitution.” I adopt his analysis of the constitutional issue as set forth in Barnes, 565 A.2d at 780-781 . See also Commonwealth v. Laskaris, 385 Pa.Super. 339 , 561 A.2d 16 (1989) (concurring opinion by Del Sole, J.).
I am further convinced that compliance with the requirements of Commonwealth v. Tuladziecki, 513 Pa. 508 , 522 A.2d 17 (1987) wastes valuable judicial resources by adding an additional tier to our analysis of a defendant’s attack on the discretionary aspects of his sentence. 1
We should simply address appellant’s sentencing issues. I have reviewed appellant’s attack on the discretionary aspects of his sentence and have found no abuse of discretion by the sentencing court. The sentencing judge complied with the requirements of the sentencing code, the sentence is well within the statutory maximum and minimums, the court had an extensive presentence investigation at its disposal, and the court stated adequate reasons for the sentence imposed on the record. See Commonwealth v. Devers, 519 Pa. 88 , 546 A.2d 12 (1988). Accordingly, I concur in the result reached by the majority.
. Note, almost eight full pages of the majority’s slip opinion is devoted to the determination of whether appellant presented any substantial questions concerning the propriety of his sentence and then addressing on the merits the two substantial questions raised.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9703228. Public record. Not legal advice.