Legal Opinion

Commonwealth v. Goggins

Superior Court of Pennsylvania

Decided March 9, 2000No. 135PublishedCited by 282 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

JOHNSON, J.:

¶ 1 On this appeal, we determine the quantum of factual and procedural detail an appellant seeking to invoke this Court’s jurisdiction to review the discretionary aspects of a criminal sentence need include in his or her concise statement of the reasons relied upon for allowance of appeal (hereinafter Rule 2119(f) statement). See Pa.R.A.P. 2119(f). We conclude that the Rule 2119(f) statement need not, and should not, include the factual and procedural detail required by our prior decisions. See Commonwealth v. Cummings, 368 Pa.Super. 341, 534 A.2d 114 (1987) (concluding that Rule…

2Cases cited17 opinions

  1. Commonwealth v. TuladzieckiSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1987
  2. Commonwealth v. MartinSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1976
  3. Commonwealth v. SaranchakSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1996
  4. Commonwealth v. JonesSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1992
  5. Commonwealth v. MartinSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1999

12 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by282 opinions

  1. Commonwealth v. AntidormiSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 2014
  2. Commonwealth v. MouzonSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2002
  3. Commonwealth v. DodgeSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 2013
  4. Commonwealth v. TiradoSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 2005
  5. Commonwealth v. ShugarsSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 2006

277 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API