Commonwealth v. Mendez

71 A.3d 250, 620 Pa. 600, 2013 WL 3742771, 2013 Pa. LEXIS 1547

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania·Decided July 17, 2013·No. No. 49 EAL 2013·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

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?

Commonwealth v. Mendez, 71 A.3d 250, 620 Pa. 600, 2013 WL 3742771, 2013 Pa. LEXIS 1547 (Pa. 2013).

Pincite

71 A.3d 250 (Commonwealth v. Mendez) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Commonwealth v. Concordia

97 A.3d 366 (Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 2014)

Opinion

Related