Commonwealth, Pet v. Ball, III., J.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Commonwealth, Pet v. Ball, III., J.

111 A.3d 745, 631 Pa. 298

CourtSupreme Court of Pennsylvania

DecidedMarch 24, 2015

Docket719 MAL 2014 (Granted)

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 111 A.3d 745 (Commonwealth, Pet v. Ball, III., J.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Pennsylvania primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Commonwealth, Pet v. Ball, III., J., 111 A.3d 745, 631 Pa. 298 (Pa. 2015).

Pincite

Opinion

*299 ORDER

PER CURIAM.

AND NOW, this 24th day of March, 2015, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is GRANTED. The issues, as stated by petitioner, are:

(1) Given the extensive impact the Superior Court’s published opinion could have on the lower courts and prosecution offices in situations where a defendant initiates a statutory summary appeal from a Magisterial District Judge’s sua sponte finding of guilt on an uncharged, lesser-included offense, should this Honorable Court grant review because the purpose for double jeopardy protections are not implicated, or implicated minimally, when the defendant appeals his conviction for a trial de novo?

(2) Should this Honorable Court exercise its supervisory authority over the Superior Court’s erroneous discharge of defendant and remand his case for sentencing on the lesser-included offense he appeals and necessarily was found guilty of committing?

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

*299 ORDER

PER CURIAM.

AND NOW, this 24th day of March, 2015, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is GRANTED. The issues, as stated by petitioner, are:

(1) Given the extensive impact the Superior Court’s published opinion could have on the lower courts and prosecution offices in situations where a defendant initiates a statutory summary appeal from a Magisterial District Judge’s sua sponte finding of guilt on an uncharged, lesser-included offense, should this Honorable Court grant review because the purpose for double jeopardy protections are not implicated, or implicated minimally, when the defendant appeals his conviction for a trial de novo?

(2) Should this Honorable Court exercise its supervisory authority over the Superior Court’s erroneous discharge of defendant and remand his case for sentencing on the lesser-included offense he appeals and necessarily was found guilty of committing?

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

111 A.3d 745, 631 Pa. 298, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/commonwealth-pet-v-ball-iii-j-pa-2015.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack