Commonwealth v. Monarch, S., Pet

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Commonwealth v. Monarch, S., Pet

179 A.3d 3

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania·Decided January 11, 2018·No. 268 WAL 2017 (Granted)·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

PER CURIAM .

AND NOW, this 11 ^th day of January, 2018, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is GRANTED, LIMITED TO the issue set forth below. Allocatur is DENIED as to all remaining issues. The issue, as stated by petitioner, is:

Was [petitioner] given impermissible enhanced penalties, as expressed in Birchfield v. North Dakota, ___ U.S. ___, 136 S.Ct. 2160 , 195 L.Ed.2d 560 (June 23, 2016), for his refusal to consent to chemical testing?

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

PER CURIAM .

AND NOW, this 11 ^th day of January, 2018, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is GRANTED, LIMITED TO the issue set forth below. Allocatur is DENIED as to all remaining issues. The issue, as stated by petitioner, is:

Was [petitioner] given impermissible enhanced penalties, as expressed in Birchfield v. North Dakota, ___ U.S. ___, 136 S.Ct. 2160 , 195 L.Ed.2d 560 (June 23, 2016), for his refusal to consent to chemical testing?

Commonwealth v. Monarch, S., Pet, 179 A.3d 3 (Pa. 2018).

Pincite

179 A.3d 3 (Commonwealth v. Monarch, S., Pet) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related