Commonwealth v. Mangum

Superior Court of Pennsylvania

Commonwealth v. Mangum

334 A.2d 680, 234 Pa. Super. 51, 1975 Pa. Super. LEXIS 1497

Superior Court of Pennsylvania·Decided March 31, 1975·No. Appeal, No. 433·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

Per Curiam,

This court on its own motion remanded this case with a procedendo to determine whether the Commonwealth had jurisdiction over the crime. Commonwealth v. Mangum, 231 Pa. Superior Ct. 162, 332 A.2d 467 (1974). Pursuant to this order, the court below, following a stipulation by both parties, determined that it did have jurisdiction and reaffirmed the judgment of sentence. When the case was remanded, we indicated that we would consider the appeal on the merits if the court below determined that it did have jurisdiction.

The sole issue raised by appellant is the severity of his sentence when compared to that of his co-conspirators. We find no merit to this claim.

The judgment of sentence is affirmed.

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

Opinion

Per Curiam,

This court on its own motion remanded this case with a procedendo to determine whether the Commonwealth had jurisdiction over the crime. Commonwealth v. Mangum, 231 Pa. Superior Ct. 162, 332 A.2d 467 (1974). Pursuant to this order, the court below, following a stipulation by both parties, determined that it did have jurisdiction and reaffirmed the judgment of sentence. When the case was remanded, we indicated that we would consider the appeal on the merits if the court below determined that it did have jurisdiction.

The sole issue raised by appellant is the severity of his sentence when compared to that of his co-conspirators. We find no merit to this claim.

The judgment of sentence is affirmed.

Commonwealth v. Mangum, 334 A.2d 680, 234 Pa. Super. 51, 1975 Pa. Super. LEXIS 1497 (Pa. Ct. App. 1975).

Pincite

334 A.2d 680 (Commonwealth v. Mangum) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related