Commonwealth v. Mendez
71 A.3d 250
Opinion
ORDER
AND NOW, this 17th day of July, 2013, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is GRANTED. The issue is:
In upholding a sentence that exceeds the statutory maximum explicitly set out in 75 Pa.C.S. § 3803, did not the majority violate the rules of statutory construction in order to avoid what it saw as “problematic consequences” resulting from a straightforward application of the statute?
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Commonwealth v. Mendez, 71 A.3d 250 (Pa. 2013).
71 A.3d 250 (Commonwealth v. Mendez) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Com. v. Tetuan, A.
Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 2015
Com. v. Caceres, A.
Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 2015
Com. v. Cantz, T.
Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 2015
Com. v. Watkins, S.
Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 2015
Com. v. Landes, J.
Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 2015
Com. v. Brown, A.
Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 2015
Com. v. Ettinger, A.
Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 2015
Com. v. Davis, J.
Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 2015
Com. v. Stewart, D.
Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 2015
Com. v. Horn, Amy Ruck
Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 2015
Com. v. Schreiber, J.
Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 2015
Com. v. Baker, W.
Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 2015
Com. v. Fessler, S.
Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 2014
Com. v. Zeigler, R.
Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 2014
Com. v. Yendriga, W.
Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 2014
Com. v. Ward, C.
Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 2014
Com. v. Newman, M.
Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 2014
Com. v. Moffitt, M.
Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 2014
Com. v. Horn, D.
Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 2014
Commonwealth v. Concordia
97 A.3d 366 (Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 2014)