Commonwealth v. Olmeda-Rivera

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Commonwealth v. Olmeda-Rivera

938 A.2d 987, 595 Pa. 405, 2007 Pa. LEXIS 2700

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania·Decided December 21, 2007·No. 341 MAL 2007·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

AND NOW, this 21st day of December, 2007, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is hereby GRANTED, the Order of the Superior Court is VACATED, and the matter is REMANDED for the Superior Court to address Petitioner’s argument that the sentence imposed by the trial court violated his Fifth Amendment rights under Estelle v. Smith, 451 U.S. 454, 101 S.Ct. 1866, 68 L.Ed.2d 359 (1981), and Mitchell v. United States, 526 U.S. 314, 119 S.Ct. 1307, 143 L.Ed.2d 424 (1999). See Commonwealth v. Olmeda-Rivera, 927 A.2d 656 *406 (Pa.Super.2007) Middle District Appeal 2006 (Pa.Super.), Brief of Appellant at 14-16, 22.

Justice EAKIN did not participate in the consideration or decision of this matter.

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

AND NOW, this 21st day of December, 2007, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is hereby GRANTED, the Order of the Superior Court is VACATED, and the matter is REMANDED for the Superior Court to address Petitioner’s argument that the sentence imposed by the trial court violated his Fifth Amendment rights under Estelle v. Smith, 451 U.S. 454, 101 S.Ct. 1866, 68 L.Ed.2d 359 (1981), and Mitchell v. United States, 526 U.S. 314, 119 S.Ct. 1307, 143 L.Ed.2d 424 (1999). See Commonwealth v. Olmeda-Rivera, 927 A.2d 656 *406 (Pa.Super.2007) Middle District Appeal 2006 (Pa.Super.), Brief of Appellant at 14-16, 22.

Justice EAKIN did not participate in the consideration or decision of this matter.

Commonwealth v. Olmeda-Rivera, 938 A.2d 987, 595 Pa. 405, 2007 Pa. LEXIS 2700 (Pa. 2007).

Pincite

938 A.2d 987 (Commonwealth v. Olmeda-Rivera) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related