Commonwealth v. Call

Superior Court of Pennsylvania

Commonwealth v. Call

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

Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Commonwealth v. Call. Read the opinion of the Court — 249 Pa. Super. 511 →

Superior Court of Pennsylvania·Decided February 5, 1976·No. Appeal, No. 1426·Published

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.

Commonwealth v. Call, 357 A.2d 177, 238 Pa. Super. 735 (Pa. Ct. App. 1976).

Pincite

357 A.2d 177 (Commonwealth v. Call) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related