Legal Opinion

Commonwealth v. Rodda

Superior Court of Pennsylvania

Decided January 7, 1999PublishedCited by 163 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

JOHNSON, J.:

¶ 1 In this appeal, we revisit the issue of the degree of specificity required in the trial court’s contemporaneous statement at sentencing to explain the court’s reasons for deviating from the sentencing guidelines, 204 Pa.Code § 303.1-303.18 at 303.1(d). In Commonwealth v. Royer, 328 Pa.Super. 60, 476 A.2d 453, 458 (Pa.Super.1984), a panel of this Court held that “[w]here the trial judge deviates from the sentencing guidelines ... he must set forth on the record, at sentencing, in the defendant’s presence, the permissible range of sentences under the guidelines.” We now conclude…

2Cases cited18 opinions

  1. Commonwealth v. TuladzieckiSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1987
  2. Commonwealth v. JonesSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1992
  3. Commonwealth v. RoyerSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1984
  4. Commonwealth v. JohnsonSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1995
  5. Commonwealth v. GreeneSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1997

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

3Cited by163 opinions

  1. Commonwealth v. MouzonSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2002
  2. Commonwealth v. GriffinSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 2002
  3. Commonwealth v. FullinSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 2006
  4. Commonwealth v. AndersonSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 2003
  5. Commonwealth v. HylandSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 2005

158 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