Home/Supreme Court of Pennsylvania/Commonwealth v. Reed

Commonwealth v. Reed

828 A.2d 1006, 573 Pa. 654, 2003 Pa. LEXIS 1239
CourtSupreme Court of Pennsylvania
DecidedJuly 21, 2003
DocketPetition No. 553 EAL 2002
StatusPublished

This text of 828 A.2d 1006 (Commonwealth v. Reed) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme 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. Reed, 828 A.2d 1006, 573 Pa. 654, 2003 Pa. LEXIS 1239 (Pa. 2003).

Opinion

[655]*655 ORDER

PER CURIAM.

AND NOW, this 21st day of July, 2003, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is GRANTED. Petitioner alleged a manifestly unreasonable and excessive sentence, supported by a Pa.R.A.P 2119(f) statement to the Superior Court, but was denied review pursuant to Commonwealth v. Burton, 770 A.2d 771 (Pa.Super.2001) (claim of excessiveness fails to raise substantial question when within statutory limits). The order of the Superior Court is VACATED, and this case is REMANDED for review consistent with Commonwealth v. Mouzon, 571 Pa. 419, 812 A.2d 617 (2002) (Opinion Announcing Judgment of the Court). Jurisdiction relinquished.

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

Related

Commonwealth v. Mouzon
812 A.2d 617 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 2002)
Commonwealth v. Burton
770 A.2d 771 (Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 2001)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
828 A.2d 1006, 573 Pa. 654, 2003 Pa. LEXIS 1239, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/commonwealth-v-reed-pa-2003.