Com. v. Smith
| Decision Date | 04 June 1990 |
| Parties | COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania v. Robert G. SMITH, Sr., Appellant. |
| Court | Pennsylvania Superior Court |
Vincent J. Quinn, Chief Public Defender, Lancaster, for appellant.
Henry S. Kenderdine, Asst. Dist. Atty., Lancaster, for Com., appellee.
Before ROWLEY, OLSZEWSKI and TAMILIA, JJ.
This is an appeal from a judgment of sentence. Appellant entered a plea of guilty to one count of robbery, 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 3701(a)(1)(ii), on January 6, 1989, in connection with the August 9, 1988, robbery of the Meridian Bank branch office at 30 N. Queen Street, Lancaster, Pennsylvania. Appellant was sentenced on February 28, 1989, to a term of imprisonment of not less than six years, eight months nor more than twenty years, plus a fine, costs, and restitution. Appellant filed a timely motion to modify sentence, which was dismissed, and a timely notice of appeal. Appellant raises two issues for our consideration, both relating to his sentence. We will deal with these issues seriatim. Finding no merit to either issue, we affirm the judgment of sentence.
Appellant's first issue is "Whether this court should review the discretionary aspects of the lower court's sentence even if this court finds that the Pa.R.A.P. 2119(f) statement fails to state a substantial question that the sentence is not appropriate under the sentencing code since 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9781 violates Article V, Section 9 of the Pennsylvania Constitution?" 1 Section 9781(b) of the Sentencing Code, 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9781(b), states:
The defendant or the Commonwealth may file a petition for allowance of appeal of the discretionary aspects of a sentence for a felony or a misdemeanor to the appellate court that has initial jurisdiction for such appeals. Allowance of appeal may be granted at the discretion of the appellate court where it appears that there is a substantial question that the sentence imposed is not appropriate under this chapter.
Article V, Section 9 of the Pennsylvania Constitution states:
There shall be a right of appeal in all cases to a court of record from a court not of record; and there shall also be a right of appeal from a court of record or from an administrative agency to a court of record or to an appellate court, the selection of such court to be as provided by law; and there shall be such other rights of appeal as may be provided by law.
While Article V, Section 9 of the Pennsylvania Constitution grants a right of appeal, it does not state that the appeal must necessarily deal with all aspects of the case below. The legislature and courts of this Commonwealth have provided a workable scheme for appellate review of the discretionary aspects of sentencing. See 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9781(b); Pa.R.A.P. 2119(f); Commonwealth v. Tuladziecki, 513 Pa. 508, 522 A.2d 17 (1987). Any appellant who raises a substantial question whether the sentence imposed is inconsistent with a specific provision of the Sentencing Code or contrary to the norms underlying the sentencing process will be entitled to allowance of appeal, while appellants who cannot raise a substantial question will not. Commonwealth v. Losch, 369 Pa.Super. 192, 535 A.2d 115 (1987). This limitation on one aspect of a criminal appeal is a reasonable regulation concerning the right to appeal; we hold that it does not violate Article V, Section 9 of the Pennsylvania Constitution. 2
Appellant's second issue is "Whether the sentence of the lower court was so manifestly excessive as to constitute an abuse of discretion where the defendant received a sentence at the top of the aggravated range of the sentencing guidelines?" Appellant was sentenced to a term of imprisonment of not less than six years, eight months nor more than twenty years, plus fines, costs and restitution. The six-year, eight-month minimum term of imprisonment was the harshest sentence the court could have imposed for appellant's guilty plea to robbery, a first-degree felony, under...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Com. v. Canfield
...We find no abuse of discretion," Id. at 305, 482 A.2d at 580. Moving on to appellant's second issue, we refer to Commonwealth v. Smith, 394 Pa.Super. 164, 575 A.2d 150 (1990) in deciding that it, too, fails to raise a substantial question. In Smith, this Court decided that an argument conce......
-
Com. v. McFarlin
...has been decided by implication. By my decision I would expressly overrule two prior decisions of this court, Commonwealth v. Smith, 394 Pa.Super. 164, 575 A.2d 150 (1990) and Commonwealth v. Chilcote, 396 Pa.Super. 106, 578 A.2d 429 (1990). In these cases the panels held that the limitatio......
-
Com. v. Koren
...at 100, 613 A.2d at 587; Commonwealth v. Mobley, 399 Pa.Super. 108, 115-16, 581 A.2d 949, 952 (1990); Commonwealth v. Smith, 394 Pa.Super. 164, 167, 575 A.2d 150, 151 (1990). Accordingly, we find that Koren's first contention does not raise a substantial question and deny her allowance of a......
-
Com. v. Cleveland
...the sentencing court gave to legitimate sentencing factors. This alone does not raise a substantial question. See Commonwealth v. Smith, 394 Pa.Super. 164, 575 A.2d 150 (1990) (citation In contrast, appellant's second claim raises a substantial question by alleging an unexplained disparity ......