From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Figueroa v. Pennsylvania Department of Corrections

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Aug 5, 2009
601 Pa. 636 (Pa. 2009)
Download
PDF
Check
Treatment

Summary

holding silence at sentencing may not form the basis of finding that a defendant failed to take responsibility for his crimes, and silence at sentencing may not be the sole basis for finding that a defendant lacked remorse; however, remand for resentencing was not necessary because trial court cited other aggravating factors

Summary of this case from Commonwealth v. McCarthy
See 17 Summaries

Opinion

No. 3 EAP 2009.

August 5, 2009.

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

AND NOW, this 5th day of August, 2009, the above captioned appeal is quashed for failure to file a brief.

Summaries of

Figueroa v. Pennsylvania Department of Corrections

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Aug 5, 2009
601 Pa. 636 (Pa. 2009)

holding silence at sentencing may not form the basis of finding that a defendant failed to take responsibility for his crimes, and silence at sentencing may not be the sole basis for finding that a defendant lacked remorse; however, remand for resentencing was not necessary because trial court cited other aggravating factors

Summary of this case from Commonwealth v. McCarthy

holding Appellant's "recidivist history" was a permissible factor "in imposing an aggravated-range sentence[]"

Summary of this case from Commonwealth v. Lynch

holding a substantial question is raised when an appellant alleges that the sentencing court considered improper factors when rendering an aggravated range sentence

Summary of this case from Commonwealth v. Rivera

finding a substantial question raised where the appellant contended that the court relied on an impermissible factor in imposing an aggravated range sentence

Summary of this case from Commonwealth v. Valente

concluding that, because the trial court relied upon several other legitimate aggravating factors in imposing sentencing, Bowen was not entitled to relief on his discretionary-aspects-of-sentence claim

Summary of this case from Commonwealth v. Sipes

In Commonwealth v. Bowen, 975 A.2d 1120 (Pa. Super. 2009), this Court held both that a defendant's silence at sentencing may not be considered as "indicative of his failure to take responsibility for the crimes for which he was convicted" and "that silence at sentencing may not be the sole factor in determining a defendant's lack of remorse."

Summary of this case from Commonwealth v. Schorschinsky

In Bowen, the defendant invoked his constitutional right not to testify during his jury trial, and maintained his silence at sentencing.

Summary of this case from Commonwealth v. Fredericks

stating that an appellant's claim that the trial court factored a defendant's lack of acceptance of responsibility into her sentence may raise a substantial question

Summary of this case from Commonwealth v. Fredericks

noting that a defendant's argument that his sentence "was based on an unconstitutional factor . . . raises a substantial question for our review"

Summary of this case from Commonwealth v. Caswell

noting that, despite relying on an impermissible factor, the trial court evaluated several permissible factors in imposing an aggravated-range sentence

Summary of this case from Commonwealth v. Caswell

In Bowen, as acknowledged by Appellant, "the trial court improperly cited the defendant's failure to take responsibility, specifically referencing that the jury convicted him of the crimes."

Summary of this case from Commonwealth v. Archacki

noting claim that court erred in considering silence when determining lack of remorse was challenge to discretionary aspects of sentencing

Summary of this case from Commonwealth v. Watson

noting that sentence, despite falling in aggravated range, still constituted a sentence within the guidelines

Summary of this case from Commonwealth v. Upton

noting that, despite relying on an impermissible factor, the trial court evaluated several permissible factors in imposing an aggravated-range sentence

Summary of this case from Commonwealth v. Greenblott

noting a claim that an aggravated-range sentence was based on an unconstitutional factor does raise a "substantial question" for review

Summary of this case from Commonwealth v. Shlewiet

providing that when imposing sentence in aggravated range sentencing court, "shall state [its] reasons on the record"

Summary of this case from Commonwealth v. Stephens

providing that when imposing sentence in aggravated range sentencing court, "shall state [its] reasons on the record"

Summary of this case from Commonwealth v. Chapman
Case details for

Figueroa v. Pennsylvania Department of Corrections

Case Details

Full title:Victor FIGUEROA, Appellant v. PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS et…

Court:Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Date published: Aug 5, 2009

Citations

601 Pa. 636 (Pa. 2009)
975 A.2d 1120

Citing Cases

Commonwealth v. Fredericks

Id. at 28-30. Third, Fredericks, citing this Court's decision in Commonwealth v. Bowen , 975 A.2d 1120, 1126…

Commonwealth v. Corbett

"[A] court may not consider a defendant's silence at sentencing as indicative of his failure to take…

100 Citing Cases