Com. v. Smith

8 Citing cases

  1. Commonwealth v. Reeves

    2001 Pa. Super. 170 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2001)   Cited 42 times
    Holding that appellant's failure to raise a specific claim regarding imposition of sentence in post-sentence motion deprived the trial court of the opportunity to consider the claim and therefore the claim was waived on appeal

    In any event, the Commonwealth's challenge is to the legality of sentence, which is generally non-waivable. See Commonwealth v. Smith, 563 A.2d 905 (Pa.Super. 1989), affirmed, 528 Pa. 380, 598 A.2d 268 (1991). ¶ 7 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9712 provides the following:

  2. Com. v. Smith

    528 Pa. 380 (Pa. 1991)   Cited 22 times
    Holding that prior court-martial guilty pleas were "prior convictions"

    We conclude that the prior court-martial convictions of appellant for the offense of robbery constitute prior convictions within the meaning of Section 9714(b)(1). Accordingly, we affirm the decision of the Superior Court, 386 Pa. Super. 626, 563 A.2d 905. Following a non-jury trial, appellant was convicted of robbery and criminal conspiracy.

  3. Commonwealth v. Spaulding

    No. 1300 WDA 2017 (Pa. Super. Ct. May. 8, 2018)

    Objections to the discretionary aspects of sentence are generally waived if they are not raised at the sentencing hearing or raised in a timely motion to modify the sentence imposed at that hearing. Commonwealth v. Sheller, 961 A.2d 187, 189 (Pa. Super. 2008) ("To properly preserve the discretionary aspects of sentencing for appellate review, the issue must be raised during sentencing or in a timely post-sentence motion." (emphasis added)); see also Commonwealth v. Smith, 563 A.2d 905, 906 (Pa.Super. 1989) ("When [a post-sentence] motion is not timely filed, the issues presented in the untimely motion are deemed waived."). "This failure cannot be cured by submitting the challenge in a Rule 1925(b) statement."

  4. Commonwealth v. Thompson

    J-S22019-17 (Pa. Super. Ct. Sep. 21, 2017)

    This Court has noted that an official seal is a technical requirement. See Commonwealth v. Smith, 563 A.2d 905 (Pa.Super. 1989). In Smith, this Court examined whether a court-martial conviction before the United States Army was a prior conviction for the purposes of section 9714 of the Sentencing Code.Id. at 909.

  5. Com. v. Pfeiffer

    396 Pa. Super. 641 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1990)   Cited 10 times
    Construing the current law, Pa. R.Crim.P., Rule 1406, 42 Pa.C.S.A., to the same effect

    Pa.R. Crim.P., Rule 1410, 42 Pa.C.S.A. Failure to file such a motion, or the failure to file in a timely manner, waives all sentencing claims, except for those involving the legality of the sentence. Commonwealth v. Bogden, 364 Pa. Super. 300, 528 A.2d 168 (1987); Commonwealth v. Smith, 386 Pa. Super. 626, 563 A.2d 905 (1989). As this Court has observed, "[t]he legality of sentence exception to the waiver doctrine has traditionally been limited to situations where the claim is that the sentence is facially illegal.

  6. Com. v. Penrod

    396 Pa. Super. 221 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1990)   Cited 41 times
    Finding that prompt or recent recidivism is an aggravating factor at the time of sentencing, because it gives "rise to an inference of intransigence rather than mere relapse following sincere attempts to reform."

    First, the issue must be specifically preserved in a timely motion for modification of sentence pursuant to Pa.R.Crim.P. 1410. Commonwealth v. Smith, 386 Pa. Super. 626, 563 A.2d 905 (1989). If a timely motion to modify was filed and denied, appellant must still file timely notice of appeal, set forth the issue(s) to be raised on appeal in the statement of questions presented, and set forth a concise statement of reasons for allowance of appeal demonstrating a substantial question that the sentence imposed was not appropriate under the Sentencing Code.

  7. Ector v. Motorists Ins. Companies

    391 Pa. Super. 458 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1990)   Cited 9 times
    In Ector v. Motorists Ins.Companies, supra, an uninsured pedestrian was injured when he was struck by an insured vehicle which had been stolen by an uninsured driver.

    We also emphasize that in ascertaining the legislative intent, we must utilize a common sense approach. Commonwealth v. Smith, 386 Pa. Super. 626, 630, 563 A.2d 905, 909 (1989). Employing a common sense approach, we conclude that the interpretation advanced by appellant is not persuasive.

  8. Telang v. Com., Bureau of Prof. Affairs

    714 A.2d 1109 (Pa. Cmmw. Ct. 1998)   Cited 1 times

    Official records as certified by the legal custodian of the records do not constitute inadmissible hearsay. Commonwealth v. Smith, 386 Pa. Super. 626, 563 A.2d 905 (1989), aff'd, 528 Pa. 380, 598 A.2d 268 (1991). ORDER