Commonwealth, Pet v. Maurer, E.

102 A.3d 421, 628 Pa. 13, 2014 Pa. LEXIS 2846
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania·Decided October 30, 2014·No. 293 MAL 2014·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinions

[14]*14 ORDER

PER CURIAM.

AND NOW, this 30th day of October, 2014, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is hereby GRANTED, the order of the Superior Court is VACATED, pursuant to Commonwealth v. Tuladziecki, 513 Pa. 508, 522 A.2d 17, 19 (1987); Commonwealth v. Provenzano, 50 A.3d 148, 154 (Pa.Super.2012) (“[W]e cannot look beyond the statement of questions presented and the prefatory 2119(f) statement to determine whether a substantial question exists.”); and Commonwealth v. Felix, 372 Pa.Super. 145, 539 A.2d 371, 377 (1988) (“[G]leaning through the entire argument section of appellant’s brief for indications of the appearance of a substantial question was precisely the practice Tuladziecki condemned.”), and the case is REMANDED to the trial court for reimposition of sentence. Jurisdiction relinquished.

Justice SAYLOR files a Dissenting Statement. Justice TODD dissents.

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

Commonwealth, Pet v. Maurer, E., 102 A.3d 421, 628 Pa. 13, 2014 Pa. LEXIS 2846 (Pa. 2014).

102 A.3d 421 (Commonwealth, Pet v. Maurer, E.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Jacobs v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review
137 A.3d 1260 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 2016)
Jacob, K. v. UCBR of: UCBR
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 2016