# Commonwealth v. Tuladziecki

> Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · March 10, 1987 · 513 Pa. 508

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9704952

## Case

- **Full name:** COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania, Appellee, v. Regis C. TULADZIECKI, Appellant
- **Court:** Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
- **Decided:** March 10, 1987
- **Citations:** 513 Pa. 508; 522 A.2d 17; 1987 Pa. LEXIS 627
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Hutchinson
- **Judges:** Zappala, Nix, Larsen, Flaherty, McDermott, Papadakos, Hutchinson
- **Cited by:** 620 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/9704952

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- 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 asp…
- 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”
- holding that the failure to comply with procedural requirements for review of discretionary aspects of sentence claims is fatal to the appellant’s claim on appeal

## Opinion text

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.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9704952. Public record. Not legal advice.