Commonwealth v. King

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Commonwealth v. King

203 A.3d 973

CourtSupreme Court of Pennsylvania

DecidedMarch 5, 2019

DocketNo. 482 EAL 2018

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 203 A.3d 973 (Commonwealth v. King) 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. King, 203 A.3d 973 (Pa. 2019).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

AND NOW, this 5^th day of March, 2019, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is GRANTED. The issues, as stated by petitioner, are:

a. Did not the Superior Court err and deny petitioner due process and Sixth Amendment rights in holding that the Commonwealth need not provide formal notice to a defendant when seeking to prosecute him for an aggravated offense, specifically the 40-year maximum sentence authorized under 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 1102(c)?

b. Did not the Superior Court err and conflate 18 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 906 and 903(c) in holding that conspiracy to commit murder and conspiracy to commit aggravated assault are separate conspiracies, where petitioner's actions were the object of one conspiratorial agreement and relationship, pursuant to § 903(c), and where petitioner was, therefore, subject to an illegal sentence contrary to the prohibition under § 906 against multiple convictions for more than one inchoate offense?

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

PER CURIAM.

AND NOW, this 5^th day of March, 2019, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is GRANTED. The issues, as stated by petitioner, are:

a. Did not the Superior Court err and deny petitioner due process and Sixth Amendment rights in holding that the Commonwealth need not provide formal notice to a defendant when seeking to prosecute him for an aggravated offense, specifically the 40-year maximum sentence authorized under 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 1102(c)?

b. Did not the Superior Court err and conflate 18 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 906 and 903(c) in holding that conspiracy to commit murder and conspiracy to commit aggravated assault are separate conspiracies, where petitioner's actions were the object of one conspiratorial agreement and relationship, pursuant to § 903(c), and where petitioner was, therefore, subject to an illegal sentence contrary to the prohibition under § 906 against multiple convictions for more than one inchoate offense?

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

203 A.3d 973, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/commonwealth-v-king-pa-2019.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack