Commonwealth v. Evans

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Commonwealth v. Evans

296 A.2d 844, 222 Pa. Super. 590, 1972 Pa. Super. LEXIS 1330

CourtSupreme Court of Pennsylvania

DecidedNovember 16, 1972

DocketAppeal, No. 442

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 296 A.2d 844 (Commonwealth v. Evans) 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. Evans, 296 A.2d 844, 222 Pa. Super. 590, 1972 Pa. Super. LEXIS 1330 (Pa. 1972).

Pincite

Opinion

Opinion by

Hoffman, J.,

TMs is a direct appeal from appellant’s sentence of one-two years in prison following Ms plea of guilty to tbe charge of possessing marijuana. Appellant contends that the sentence was excessive.

The Controlled Substance, Drug, Device and Cosmetic Act¹ applies to all cases not final as of June 14, 1972, the effective date of the act. As tMs appeal was pending on that date, the judgment in the instant case was not then final. Commonwealth v. Simpson, 222 Pa. Superior Ct. 296, 294 A. 2d 805 (1972). Thus, the said act applies herein.

The lower court record does not indicate the quantity of marijuana which the appellant was convicted of possessing. TMs court, therefore, cannot determine whether or not the one-two year sentence is in accord with the statute. Under the new act, the term of imprisonment wMch may be imposed is contingent upon the quantity of marijuana possessed. We remand this case to the Court of Common Pleas of Berks County with instructions that the quantity possessed be determined and a sentence be then imposed consistent with the precepts of the new act.

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

Opinion by

Hoffman, J.,

TMs is a direct appeal from appellant’s sentence of one-two years in prison following Ms plea of guilty to tbe charge of possessing marijuana. Appellant contends that the sentence was excessive.

The Controlled Substance, Drug, Device and Cosmetic Act¹ applies to all cases not final as of June 14, 1972, the effective date of the act. As tMs appeal was pending on that date, the judgment in the instant case was not then final. Commonwealth v. Simpson, 222 Pa. Superior Ct. 296, 294 A. 2d 805 (1972). Thus, the said act applies herein.

The lower court record does not indicate the quantity of marijuana which the appellant was convicted of possessing. TMs court, therefore, cannot determine whether or not the one-two year sentence is in accord with the statute. Under the new act, the term of imprisonment wMch may be imposed is contingent upon the quantity of marijuana possessed. We remand this case to the Court of Common Pleas of Berks County with instructions that the quantity possessed be determined and a sentence be then imposed consistent with the precepts of the new act.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

296 A.2d 844, 222 Pa. Super. 590, 1972 Pa. Super. LEXIS 1330, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/commonwealth-v-evans-pa-1972.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack