# Commonwealth v. Billett

> Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · January 13, 1988 · 370 Pa. Super. 125

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9733915

## Case

- **Full name:** COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania v. Clarence Lynn BILLETT, Appellant
- **Court:** Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
- **Decided:** January 13, 1988
- **Citations:** 370 Pa. Super. 125; 535 A.2d 1182; 1988 Pa. Super. LEXIS 26
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Cirillo
- **Judges:** Cirillo, Johnson, Hoffman
- **Cited by:** 15 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/9733915

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- 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.”

## Opinion text

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.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9733915. Public record. Not legal advice.