The constitutionality of a statute presents a pure question of law, over which our standard of review is de novo, and our scope of review is plenary. See Commonwealth v. Brooker, 103 A.3d 325, 334 (Pa. Super. 2014). Moreover, our Supreme Court has declared:
An abuse of discretion "is not merely an error of judgment, but if in reaching a conclusion the law is overridden or misapplied, or the judgment exercised is manifestly unreasonable, or the result of partiality, prejudice, bias or ill-will . . .." Commonwealth v. Brooker, 103 A.3d 325, 332 (Pa. Super. 2014) (internal citation omitted).
Generally, if there is a discrepancy between the sentence imposed in open court and the trial court's written sentencing order, the written sentencing order controls. See Commonwealth v. Kremer, 206 A.3d 543, 550 (Pa. Super. 2019); Commonwealth v. Brooker, 103 A.3d 325, 329 n.4 (Pa. Super. 2014). In its brief, the Commonwealth acknowledges this discrepancy, notes that it did not challenge it, and concedes that the written sentencing order controls in this matter.
The constitutionality of a statute presents a "pure question of law," over which our standard of review is de novo, and our scope of review is plenary. Commonwealth v. Brooker, 103 A.3d 325, 334 (Pa. Super. 2014).
In confronting a challenge to the constitutionality of a statute, our standard of review is de novo and our scope of review is plenary. Commonwealth v. Brooker, 103 A.3d 325, 334 (Pa.Super. 2014). In Torsilieri, our Supreme Court outlined the significant burden borne by an individual seeking to invalidate a statutory scheme on constitutional grounds:
"As the constitutionality of a statute presents a pure question of law, our standard of review is de novo, and our scope of review is plenary." Commonwealth v. Brooker, 103 A.3d 325, 334 (Pa. Super. 2014).
The constitutionality of a statute presents a "pure question of law," over which our standard of review is de novo and our scope of review is plenary. Commonwealth v. Brooker, 103 A.3d 325, 334 (Pa.Super. 2014).
"The constitutionality of a statute presents a 'pure question of law,' over which our standard of review is de novo[,] and our scope of review is plenary." Commonwealth v. Brooker, 103 A.3d 325, 334 (Pa. Super. 2014).
We review the court's denial of a post-sentence motion for a new trial for an abuse of discretion. See Commonwealth v. Brooker, 103 A.3d 325, 332 (Pa.Super. 2014). Rule 720 provides that a defendant may file a post-sentence motion "for a new trial on the ground of after-discovered evidence[.]" Pa.R.Crim.P. 720(C).
"Because evidentiary sufficiency is a matter of law, our standard of review is de novo and our scope of review is plenary." Commonwealth v. Brooker, 103 A.3d 325, 330 (Pa. Super. 2014).