Opinion

Commonwealth v. Billett

  • 370 Pa. Super. 125
  • 535 A.2d 1182
  • 1988 Pa. Super. LEXIS 26
Court
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Filed
Jan 13, 1988
Status
Published
Author
Cirillo
On the bench
Cirillo, Johnson, Hoffman
Cited by
15 cases
Authority
More cited than 9.7%

stating that “[t]he question whether juvenile adjudications may properly be included in computing prior record scores implicates a discretionary aspect of sentencing and not sentencing legality.”

How later courts described this case

  • stating that “[t]he question whether juvenile adjudications may properly be included in computing prior record scores implicates a discretionary aspect of sentencing and not sentencing legality.”
  • in sentencing adult, court could consider defendant’s prior adjudication of delinquency

Written by the judges who cited it.

The opinion

CIRILLO, President Judge,

dissenting:

I respectfully dissent. I disagree with the majority’s decision to reach the merits of this appeal. Billett chal *132 lenges discretionary aspects of the sentence imposed. Where a purely discretionary aspect of sentencing is being challenged, the appellant müst include in his brief a “concise statement of the reasons relied upon for allowance of appeal.” 42 Pa.C.S. § 9781(b). This statement must show that there exists a “substantial question that the sentence imposed is not appropriate under [the Sentencing Code].” Id.; Pa.R.A.P. 2119(f); see also Commonwealth v. Tuladzeicki, 513 Pa. 508 , 522 A.2d 17 (1987).

I disagree with the majority decision in Commonwealth v. Krum, 367 Pa.Super. 511 , 533 A.2d 134 (1987) (en banc), which held that an appellant’s failure to comply with Pa.R.A.P. 2119(f) and Tuladziecki, if not objected to by the appellee, is a waivable procedural violation. Compliance with the rule is necessary in order to invoke this court’s jurisdiction. The Krum majority, in my opinion, has misinterpreted Tuladziecki. See Krum, 367 Pa.Super. at 521-522 , 533 A.2d at 139 (Brosky, J., dissenting); see also Commonwealth v. Tilghman, 366 Pa.Super. 328 , 531 A.2d 441 (1987) (en banc) (Cirillo, P.J., concurring). In failing to include a Rule 2119(f) statement in his brief, Billett has failed to properly invoke this court’s jurisdiction. The proper course, under the supreme court’s ruling in Tuladziecki, is to quash this appeal.

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.