Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

COMMONWEALTH PENNSYLVANIA v. JEFFREY BORS (11/30/89)

SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA


filed: November 30, 1989.

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA
v.
JEFFREY BORS, APPELLANT

Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence in the Court of Common Pleas of Montgomery County, Criminal at No. 1056-85 & 3485-85. Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence in the Court of Common Pleas of Montgomery County, Criminal at No. 1845-87 & 2283-87.

Montemuro, Popovich and Cercone, JJ.

MEMORANDUM:

This is an appeal from a consolidated judgment of sentence entered by Judges Subers and Tressler of the Court of Common Pleas, Montgomery County on December 20, 1988. The two judges found appellant to be in violation of his parole, and he was remanded to serve the time remaining on the prison term from which he was paroled. In addition, the judges revoked appellant's sentences of probation for two other crimes, and they sentenced appellant to imprisonment for both offenses. Appellant contends on this appeal that the sentences were excessive.

Since this is an appeal of the discretionary aspects of sentencing, the appellant was required to include a statement of reasons relied upon for appeal with respect to the discretionary aspect of his sentence. While he included a separate section in his brief as required, he failed to include in that section a substantial question regarding the propriety of the trial judges' exercise of their discretion. Appellant's does not, as he must, set forth in his brief any averments suggesting that the entire sentencing scheme as a whole has been compromised. 42 Pa. C.S.A. ยง 9781(b). Instead, he contends that the trial judges "did not adequately consider" certain factors that were presented at the sentencing hearing. In Commonwealth v. Williams, Pa. Super. , , 562 A.2d 1385, 1388 (1989) (en banc) we held that the claim that a sentencing judge "did not adequately consider" various factors would not be sufficient to present a substantial question that the sentence was inappropriate, because it is foolish to assume that a court in possession of the facts will fail to consider and apply them. Id. at , 562 A.2d at 1388 (citing Commonwealth v. Devers, 519 P. 88, 102, 546 A.2d 12, 18 (1988). When the appellant fails to present a substantial question, this court must dismiss the appeal.

We affirm the judgment of sentence.

Disposition

We affirm the judgment of sentence.

19891130

© 1998 VersusLaw Inc.



Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.