# Commonwealth v. Boyer

> Superior Court of Pennsylvania · August 3, 2004 · 2004 Pa. Super. 303

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9731732

## Case

- **Full name:** COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania, Appellee, v. Jay Michael BOYER, Appellant
- **Court:** Superior Court of Pennsylvania
- **Decided:** August 3, 2004
- **Citations:** 2004 Pa. Super. 303; 856 A.2d 149; 2004 Pa. Super. LEXIS 2340
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Klein
- **Judges:** Sole, Joyce, Klein
- **Cited by:** 211 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/9731732

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- finding substantial question where defendant argued "that his sentence was manifestly excessive and that the court erred by considering only the serious nature of the offenses and failing to consider mitigating factors such as his age (19) at sentencing, his rehabilitative nee…
- stating that, in order for this Court to review a challenge to the discretionary aspects of a sentence, the appellant must present a substantial question that the sentence violates a particular provision of the Sentencing Code or is contrary to the fundamental norms underlying…
- stating that “where the sentencing judge had the benefit of a pre-sentence investigation report, it will be presumed that he or she was aware of the relevant information regarding the defendant’s character and weighed those considerations along with mitigating statutory factors.”
- stating that “where the sentencing judge had the benefit of a presentence investigation report, it will be presumed that he or she was aware of the relevant information regarding the defendant’s character and weighed those considerations along with mitigating statutory factors”
- concluding that the court did not abuse its discretion in imposing a series of consecutive. standard range sentences when the court considen .xl the prescntcncc report and the particular circumstance of the crime

## Opinion text

DISSENTING STATEMENT BY
KLEIN, J.:
¶ 1 I dissent. Under these circumstances, I believe sentencing a nineteen year old defendant to a 100 year maximum sentence is excessive.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9731732. Public record. Not legal advice.