Commonwealth v. Rose

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Commonwealth v. Rose

95 A.3d 274

Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Commonwealth v. Rose. Read the opinion of the Court — 623 Pa. 241 →

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania·Decided July 8, 2014·Published

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

AND NOW, this 8th day of July, 2014, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is GRANTED. The issue, as framed by the Commonwealth, is as follows:

Whether the Superior Court erred in concluding, as a matter of first impression, that [Respondent] was entitled to a reduced punishment under the ex post facto clause for a murder that he had yet to commit when the law was changed to increase the punishment prior to the victim’s death?

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

AND NOW, this 8th day of July, 2014, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is GRANTED. The issue, as framed by the Commonwealth, is as follows:

Whether the Superior Court erred in concluding, as a matter of first impression, that [Respondent] was entitled to a reduced punishment under the ex post facto clause for a murder that he had yet to commit when the law was changed to increase the punishment prior to the victim’s death?

Commonwealth v. Rose, 95 A.3d 274 (Pa. 2014).

Pincite

95 A.3d 274 (Commonwealth v. Rose) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.