Commonwealth v. Carmichael

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Commonwealth v. Carmichael

364 A.2d 305, 468 Pa. 501, 1976 Pa. LEXIS 708

CourtSupreme Court of Pennsylvania

DecidedOctober 8, 1976

DocketNo. 384

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 364 A.2d 305 (Commonwealth v. Carmichael) 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 v. Carmichael, 364 A.2d 305, 468 Pa. 501, 1976 Pa. LEXIS 708 (Pa. 1976).

Pincite

Opinion

[502]*502OPINION OF THE COURT

PER CURIAM.

In this appeal from a judgment of sentence for voluntary manslaughter appellant contends that the trial court abused its discretion in sentencing him to a term of imprisonment of not less than four and one-half and not more than nine years, and that the sentence should be modified. It is alleged that this abuse of discretion occurred because the court considered material improperly contained in the court-ordered pre-sentence report. We have reviewed the record and conclude that the pre-sentence report did not contain any information which was unfairly prejudicial to the appellant. We are also satisfied that the sentence imposed, which was within the statutory limits for voluntary manslaughter, was not manifestly excessive. See Commonwealth v. Martin, 466 Pa.118, 351 A.2d 650 (1976); ABA Standards Relating to Appellate Review of Sentences, § 3.2 (Approved Draft, 1968).

Judgment of sentence affirmed.

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

[502]*502OPINION OF THE COURT

PER CURIAM.

In this appeal from a judgment of sentence for voluntary manslaughter appellant contends that the trial court abused its discretion in sentencing him to a term of imprisonment of not less than four and one-half and not more than nine years, and that the sentence should be modified. It is alleged that this abuse of discretion occurred because the court considered material improperly contained in the court-ordered pre-sentence report. We have reviewed the record and conclude that the pre-sentence report did not contain any information which was unfairly prejudicial to the appellant. We are also satisfied that the sentence imposed, which was within the statutory limits for voluntary manslaughter, was not manifestly excessive. See Commonwealth v. Martin, 466 Pa.118, 351 A.2d 650 (1976); ABA Standards Relating to Appellate Review of Sentences, § 3.2 (Approved Draft, 1968).

Judgment of sentence affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

364 A.2d 305, 468 Pa. 501, 1976 Pa. LEXIS 708, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/commonwealth-v-carmichael-pa-1976.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack