Please E-mail suggested additions, comments and/or corrections to Kent@MoreLaw.Com.
Help support the publication of case reports on MoreLaw
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania v. Samantha Nichole Yeager
Date: 01-06-2025
Case Number: CP-28-CR-1410-2019
Judge: Not Available
Court: Court of Common Pleas, Franklin County, Pennsylvania
Plaintiff's Attorney: Franklin County, Pennsylvania District Attorney's Office
Defendant's Attorney:
Click Here For The Best Charmbersburg Criminal Defense Lawyer Directory
Description:
Chambersburg, Pennsylvania criminal defense lawyer represented the Defandant chrarged with one count of accident involving damage to attended vehicle/property - graded as a third[-]degree misdemeanor,1 one count of [driving under the influence of alcohol or a controlled substance (DUI)]: general impairment with accident - third offense - graded as a first[-]degree misdemeanor,2 and one count of DUI: highest rate of alcohol - third offense - graded as a third degree felony.
* * *
CRIMINAL LAW. PROBATION VIOLATION. The appellant challenged the trial court's discretion in imposing a 12 to 84-month sentence for probation violations, arguing the sentence was excessive and lacked proper justification.
CRIMINAL LAW. DISCRETIONARY ASPECTS OF SENTENCING. The case examines whether procedural missteps, such as failing to preserve a sentencing challenge or assert it at the sentencing hearing, can waive discretionary sentencing claims on appeal.
CRIMINAL LAW. SUBSTANTIAL QUESTION ANALYSIS. The court considered what constitutes a substantial question for reviewing discretionary aspects of sentencing, particularly in the context of technical probation violations linked to drug use.
Key Phrases Technical violations. Probation revocation. Discretionary aspects. Substantial question. Sentence of total confinement.
* * *
CRIMINAL LAW. PROBATION VIOLATION. The appellant challenged the trial court's discretion in imposing a 12 to 84-month sentence for probation violations, arguing the sentence was excessive and lacked proper justification.
CRIMINAL LAW. DISCRETIONARY ASPECTS OF SENTENCING. The case examines whether procedural missteps, such as failing to preserve a sentencing challenge or assert it at the sentencing hearing, can waive discretionary sentencing claims on appeal.
CRIMINAL LAW. SUBSTANTIAL QUESTION ANALYSIS. The court considered what constitutes a substantial question for reviewing discretionary aspects of sentencing, particularly in the context of technical probation violations linked to drug use.
Key Phrases Technical violations. Probation revocation. Discretionary aspects. Substantial question. Sentence of total confinement.
Outcome:
Affirmed
Plaintiff's Experts:
Defendant's Experts:
Comments:
About This Case
What was the outcome of Commonwealth of Pennsylvania v. Samantha Nichole Yeager?
The outcome was: Affirmed
Which court heard Commonwealth of Pennsylvania v. Samantha Nichole Yeager?
This case was heard in Court of Common Pleas, Franklin County, Pennsylvania, PA. The presiding judge was Not Available.
Who were the attorneys in Commonwealth of Pennsylvania v. Samantha Nichole Yeager?
Plaintiff's attorney: Franklin County, Pennsylvania District Attorney's Office. Defendant's attorney: Click Here For The Best Charmbersburg Criminal Defense Lawyer Directory.
When was Commonwealth of Pennsylvania v. Samantha Nichole Yeager decided?
This case was decided on January 6, 2025.