Commonwealth v. Finnecy

81 Citing cases

  1. Commonwealth v. Cohens

    921 EDA 2022 (Pa. Super. Ct. Apr. 14, 2023)

    Commonwealth v. Hicks, 151 A.3d 216, 227 (Pa. Super. 2016), citing Commonwealth v. Haynes, 125 A.3d 800, 807-808 (Pa. Super. 2015), appeal denied, 167 A.3d 1287 (Pa. 2017). Similarly, "[a]n appellant's allegation that the trial court imposed sentence without considering the requisite statutory factors or stating adequate reasons for dispensing with a [PSI] report raises a substantial question." Commonwealth v. Finnecy, 135 A.3d 1028, 1032 (Pa. Super. 2016) (citation and original brackets omitted), appeal denied, 159 A.3d 935 (Pa. 2016).

  2. Commonwealth v. Ciccanti

    1459 MDA 2021 (Pa. Super. Ct. Aug. 9, 2022)

    Among the issues raised on direct appeal in Commonwealth v. Finnecy, 135 A.3d 1028 (Pa. Super. 2016), appeal denied, 159 A.3d 935 (Pa. 2016), was a claim that the trial court erred in finding that Finnecy was ineligible for a RRRI sentence because he had single, previous conviction for resisting arrest. Specifically, Finnecy challenged the trial court's classification of resisting arrest as a "violent crime," thereby excluding him from eligibility for an RRRI sentence.

  3. Commonwealth v. Finnecy

    No. J-S05022-19 (Pa. Super. Ct. Apr. 17, 2019)

    The trial court determined at sentencing that Appellant was not RRRI eligible.Commonwealth v. Finnecy, 135 A.3d 1028, 1029-30 (Pa. Super. 2016), appeal denied, 159 A.3d 935 (Pa. 2016) (citation and brackets omitted). The charges for unauthorized use of a motor vehicle and theft appear at docket number 597-2009.

  4. Commonwealth v. Finnecy

    249 A.3d 903 (Pa. 2021)   Cited 40 times
    Holding that a history of violent behavior rendering a defendant RRRI ineligible requires more than one prior conviction for resisting arrest

    Appellant's judgment of sentence was affirmed on appeal. See Commonwealth v. Finnecy , 135 A.3d 1028 (Pa. Super. 2016). This Court denied Appellant's request for review.

  5. Commonwealth v. Arroyo-O'Neill

    J. S90041-16 (Pa. Super. Ct. Feb. 10, 2017)

    The RRRI Act does not define "a history of present or past violent behavior," but several recent decisions have analyzed its meaning. See Commonwealth v. Chester, 101 A.3d 56 (Pa. 2014); Commonwealth v. Finnecy, 135 A.3d 1028 (Pa. Super. 2016), appeal denied, ___ A.3d ___ (Pa. October 19, 2016); Commonwealth v. Cullen-Doyle, 133 A.3d 14 (Pa. Super. 2016), appeal granted, 138 A.3d 609 (Pa. 2016) (argued November 2, 2016). The Pennsylvania Supreme Court granted the petition for allowance of appeal with regard to the following issue:

  6. Commonwealth v. Simmons

    J-S53038-19 (Pa. Super. Ct. Nov. 14, 2019)

    "The essential inquiry is instead whether the sentencing court was 'apprised of comprehensive information to make the punishment fit not only the crime but also the person who committed it.'" Commonwealth v. Finnecy, 135 A.3d 1028, 1032 (Pa. Super. 2016) (citation omitted). Here, at sentencing, the trial court heard statements from both Appellant and his grandmother.

  7. Commonwealth v. Finnecy

    J-S05022-19 (Pa. Super. Ct. Apr. 17, 2019)

    I acknowledge that on Finnecy's direct appeal, I agreed with the Majority that Appellant's conviction for resisting arrest rendered him ineligible for the RRRI program. See Commonwealth v. Finnecy, 135 A.3d 1028, 1038 (Pa. Super. 2016) (Strassburger, J., concurring). However, since then, our Supreme Court decided Commonwealth v. Cullen-Doyle, 164 A.3d 1239, 1244 (Pa. 2017) (holding that a "single, present conviction for a violent crime does not constitute a history of violent behavior").

  8. Commonwealth v. Weaver

    No. J-S32044-18 (Pa. Super. Ct. Oct. 29, 2018)

    "[W]here the sentencing judge had the benefit of a presentence investigation report, it will be presumed that he or she was aware of the relevant information regard the defendant's character and weighed those considerations along with mitigating statutory factors." Commonwealth v Finnecy, 135 A.3d 1028, 1038 (Pa. Super. 2016), appeal denied, 159 A.3d 935 (Pa. 2016) (citation omitted). In this case, our review of the certified record belies Appellant's claim that the trial court abused its discretion in imposing an excessive sentence considering that all counts related to the same conduct.

  9. Commonwealth v. Jones

    No. J-S64028-17 (Pa. Super. Ct. Oct. 25, 2017)

    "Where the sentencing judge had the benefit of a presentence investigation report, it will be presumed that he or she was aware of the relevant information regarding the defendant's character and weighed those considerations along with mitigating statutory factors." Commonwealth v. Finnecy, 135 A.3d 1028, 1038 (Pa. Super. 2016) (quoting Commonwealth v. Clarke, 70 A.3d 1281, 1287 (Pa. Super. 2013)). Here, the trial court advises us that, "[p]rior to sentencing both the Commonwealth and [Appellant] filed sentencing memorandums, which this court considered.

  10. Commonwealth v. Distefano

    1365 WDA 2023 (Pa. Super. Ct. Sep. 17, 2024)

    Commonwealth v. Finnecy, 135 A.3d 1028, 1038 (Pa.Super. 2016)[.]