# Commonwealth v. Prestidge

> Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · March 7, 1988 · 372 Pa. Super. 282

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9762614

## Case

- **Full name:** COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania v. Daniel James PRESTIDGE, Appellant
- **Court:** Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
- **Decided:** March 7, 1988
- **Citations:** 372 Pa. Super. 282; 539 A.2d 439; 1988 Pa. Super. LEXIS 536
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Brosky
- **Judges:** Brosky, Sole, Hoffman
- **Cited by:** 8 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/9762614

## Opinion text

BROSKY, Judge,
concurring:
While I agree with the majority the judgment of sentence should be affirmed in this case, and I agree with the majority’s disposition of the first, second and fourth issues, I must take exception to the result reached with regard to the third issue raised by appellant.
Appellant’s third issue questions the propriety of the trial court having sentenced him in the aggravated range. As noted by the majority, this issue challenges a discretionary aspect of sentencing. While I agree with the majority’s view that we must determine whether there exists a substantial question requiring us to review the discretionary aspects of sentence, I disagree that the issue before us presents such a question. According to the majority, Commonwealth v. Sessoms, 516 Pa. 365 , 532 A.2d 775 (1987), is inapplicable because appellant has not challenged the constitutionality of the Sentencing Guidelines. I do not agree. In Sessoms , the Pennsylvania Supreme Court declared the Sentencing Guidelines to be void ab initio. Thus, alleging that the sentence was improperly imposed in the aggravating range will not, by itself, raise a substantial question that the sentence is inappropriate under the sentencing code. I would, therefore, conclude that no substantial question exists regarding that aspect of the sentence. Consequently, I would decline review of the third issue raised by appellant, and would dismiss the appeal as to that issue alone.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9762614. Public record. Not legal advice.