Commonwealth v. Fields

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Commonwealth v. Fields

64 A.3d 628, 619 Pa. 398, 2013 Pa. LEXIS 587

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania·Decided March 28, 2013·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

AND NOW, this 28th day of March, 2013, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is GRANTED. The issue, as stated by petitioner, is:

Did the Superior Court disregard the plain language of the “second strike” mandatory sentencing provision of the repeat-violent-offender statute when it held that the provision applied to only one of the multiple crimes of violence that [respondent], a previously-convicted rapist and burglar, committed in a later, second criminal episode in which he again raped a woman and burglarized her home?

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

AND NOW, this 28th day of March, 2013, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is GRANTED. The issue, as stated by petitioner, is:

Did the Superior Court disregard the plain language of the “second strike” mandatory sentencing provision of the repeat-violent-offender statute when it held that the provision applied to only one of the multiple crimes of violence that [respondent], a previously-convicted rapist and burglar, committed in a later, second criminal episode in which he again raped a woman and burglarized her home?

Commonwealth v. Fields, 64 A.3d 628, 619 Pa. 398, 2013 Pa. LEXIS 587 (Pa. 2013).

Pincite

64 A.3d 628 (Commonwealth v. Fields) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related