Commonwealth v. Wilson

889 A.2d 38, 585 Pa. 461, 2005 Pa. LEXIS 2744

Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Commonwealth v. Wilson. Read the opinion of the Court — 580 Pa. 439 →

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania·Decided December 7, 2005·No. Petition No. 261 MAL 2005·Published

Opinion

[462]*462 ORDER

PER CURIAM.

AND NOW, this 7th day of December, 2005, the Motion for Immediate Hearing on Bail is DENIED. Petition for Allowance of Appeal is GRANTED, limited to the following issues:

1. Whether sentence enhancement evidence may be presented for the first time at resentencing upon remand.

2. Whether punishment in a criminal case involving a single count constitutes a sentencing “scheme.”

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

[462]*462 ORDER

PER CURIAM.

AND NOW, this 7th day of December, 2005, the Motion for Immediate Hearing on Bail is DENIED. Petition for Allowance of Appeal is GRANTED, limited to the following issues:

1. Whether sentence enhancement evidence may be presented for the first time at resentencing upon remand.

2. Whether punishment in a criminal case involving a single count constitutes a sentencing “scheme.”

Commonwealth v. Wilson, 889 A.2d 38, 585 Pa. 461, 2005 Pa. LEXIS 2744 (Pa. 2005).

Pincite

889 A.2d 38 (Commonwealth v. Wilson) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.