explaining that, when the sentencing court is directed to determine the appropriate sentence based upon its “opinion” of the “weight” to be assigned to a “multitude of factors,” an attack relating to the court’s weighing of those factors is a challenge to the discretionary aspects of the sentence
How later courts described this case
- explaining that, when the sentencing court is directed to determine the appropriate sentence based upon its “opinion” of the “weight” to be assigned to a “multitude of factors,” an attack relating to the court’s weighing of those factors is a challenge to the discretionary aspects of the sentence
- holding that an appellant must set forth a separate concise statement of reasons for allowance of appeal, and it is error to review the appellant’s argument section of the brief to determine if it raises a substantial question
- holding that claim relating to discretionary aspects of sentence is waived if appellant does not include Pa.R.A.P. 2119(f) statement in brief and opposing party objects to statement’s absence
- concluding that appellate review despite the failure to meet these requirements would afford an appellant “an appeal as of right from the discretionary aspects of a sentence”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
HUTCHINSON, Justice,
dissenting.
I dissent. This matter is ill-suited for judicial review. I would dismiss this appeal as improvidently granted and refer the issue to our Appellate Rules Committee.