Commonwealth v. Mangum

Superior Court of Pennsylvania

Commonwealth v. Mangum

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

CourtSuperior Court of Pennsylvania

DecidedMarch 31, 1975

DocketAppeal, No. 433

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 334 A.2d 680 (Commonwealth v. Mangum) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Superior 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. Mangum, 334 A.2d 680, 234 Pa. Super. 51, 1975 Pa. Super. LEXIS 1497 (Pa. Ct. App. 1975).

Pincite

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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

334 A.2d 680, 234 Pa. Super. 51, 1975 Pa. Super. LEXIS 1497, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/commonwealth-v-mangum-pasuperct-1975.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack