Commonwealth v. Castro

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Commonwealth v. Castro

161 A.3d 798, 639 Pa. 595, 2016 WL 6887380, 2016 Pa. LEXIS 2634

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania·Decided November 22, 2016·No. No. 310 EAL 2016·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 22nd day of November, 2016, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is GRANTED. The issues, rephrased for clarity, are:

(1) In view of Payton v. New York, 445 U.S. 573 (1980), and Steagald v. United States, 451 U.S. 204 (1981), did the Superior Court err in concluding that an arrest warrant for Earnest Moreno authorized entry into the residence of Angel Romero and Wendy Castro for the purpose of executing the arrest warrant?

(2) Did the Superior Court apply an erroneous standard of review regarding the suppression court’s finding of fact that the authorities did not have express permission to enter the residence of Angel Romero and Wendy Castro?

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 22nd day of November, 2016, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is GRANTED. The issues, rephrased for clarity, are:

(1) In view of Payton v. New York, 445 U.S. 573 (1980), and Steagald v. United States, 451 U.S. 204 (1981), did the Superior Court err in concluding that an arrest warrant for Earnest Moreno authorized entry into the residence of Angel Romero and Wendy Castro for the purpose of executing the arrest warrant?

(2) Did the Superior Court apply an erroneous standard of review regarding the suppression court’s finding of fact that the authorities did not have express permission to enter the residence of Angel Romero and Wendy Castro?

Commonwealth v. Castro, 161 A.3d 798, 639 Pa. 595, 2016 WL 6887380, 2016 Pa. LEXIS 2634 (Pa. 2016).

Pincite

161 A.3d 798 (Commonwealth v. Castro) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related