Commonwealth v. Call

Superior Court of Pennsylvania

Commonwealth v. Call

357 A.2d 177, 238 Pa. Super. 735

CourtSuperior Court of Pennsylvania

DecidedFebruary 5, 1976

DocketAppeal, No. 1426

StatusPublished

This text of 357 A.2d 177 (Commonwealth v. Call) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Superior 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 v. Call, 357 A.2d 177, 238 Pa. Super. 735 (Pa. Ct. App. 1976).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam:

The sentences imposed by the court below are vacated and the case is remanded for resentencing. While each sentence viewed alone is lawful, the imposition of consecutive sentences which, when combined, exceed the maximum which had previously been imposed under the concurrent sentences, constitutes a violation of double jeopardy. Commonwealth v. Taylor, 238 Pa. Superior Ct. 232, 357 A.2d 562 (1975).

Spaeth, J., concurs in the result.

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

Opinion

Per Curiam:

The sentences imposed by the court below are vacated and the case is remanded for resentencing. While each sentence viewed alone is lawful, the imposition of consecutive sentences which, when combined, exceed the maximum which had previously been imposed under the concurrent sentences, constitutes a violation of double jeopardy. Commonwealth v. Taylor, 238 Pa. Superior Ct. 232, 357 A.2d 562 (1975).

Spaeth, J., concurs in the result.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

357 A.2d 177, 238 Pa. Super. 735, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/commonwealth-v-call-pasuperct-1976.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack