Commonwealth v. Steckley

41 A.3d 855, 615 Pa. 151, 2012 WL 1109434, 2012 Pa. LEXIS 732
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania·Decided April 4, 2012·No. No. 681 MAL 2011·Published·Cited by 3 cases

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

AND NOW, this 4th day of April, 2012, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is GRANTED, LIMITED TO the issues set forth below. Allocatur is DENIED as to all remaining issues. The issues, as stated by Petitioner, are:

(1) Whether the Superior Court erred in affirming the trial court’s imposition of a mandatory minimum given a failure to notify the Defendant/Appellant of the applicability of said mandatory minimum sentence pursuant to 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9718.2(d)?
(2) Whether notice of the applicability of Section 9718.2 from defense counsel can satisfy Subsection 9718.2(d)’s notice requirement without violating attorney/client privilege and defense counsel’s duty to provide zealous representation?

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

Commonwealth v. Steckley, 41 A.3d 855, 615 Pa. 151, 2012 WL 1109434, 2012 Pa. LEXIS 732 (Pa. 2012).

41 A.3d 855 (Commonwealth v. Steckley) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Com. v. Steckley, S., Jr.
128 A.3d 826 (Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 2015)
Com. v. Prinkey, M.
Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 2015