# Commonwealth v. Myers

> Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · January 21, 1988 · 370 Pa. Super. 326

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9757405

## Case

- **Full name:** COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania v. Kevin L. MYERS, Appellant
- **Court:** Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
- **Decided:** January 21, 1988
- **Citations:** 370 Pa. Super. 326; 536 A.2d 428; 1988 Pa. Super. LEXIS 35
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Cirillo
- **Judges:** Cirillo, Hoffman, Cercone
- **Cited by:** 11 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/9757405

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- finding appellant raised a substantial question by arguing the sentencing court abused its discretion by failing to set forth adequate reasons to justify the disparity between his sentence and that of his co- defendant

## Opinion text

CIRILLO, President Judge,
dissenting opinion:
I respectfully dissent. I disagree with the majority’s decision to reach the merits of this appeal. Myers challenges discretionary aspects of the sentence imposed. Where a purely discretionary aspect of sentencing is being challenged, the appellant must 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 520 , 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, Myers has failed to properly invoke this court’s jurisdiction. The proper course, *333 under the supreme court’s ruling in Tuladziecki, is to quash this appeal.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9757405. Public record. Not legal advice.