Commonwealth v. Yuhasz

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Commonwealth v. Yuhasz

899 A.2d 342

CourtSupreme Court of Pennsylvania

DecidedMay 9, 2006

DocketNo. 1081 MAL 2005

StatusPublished

This text of 899 A.2d 342 (Commonwealth v. Yuhasz) 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. Yuhasz, 899 A.2d 342 (Pa. 2006).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

AND NOW, this 9th day of May 2006, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is GRANTED, limited to:

Whether the sentence imposed in this case pursuant to Pennsylvania’s indeterminate sentencing scheme, which was within the statutory maximum but exceeded the aggravated range of the Sentencing Guidelines, violates the Sixth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution in light of the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296, 124 S.Ct. 2531, 159 L.Ed.2d 403 (2004) because the sentencing judge relied upon conduct not admitted in petitioner’s guilty plea?

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

AND NOW, this 9th day of May 2006, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is GRANTED, limited to:

Whether the sentence imposed in this case pursuant to Pennsylvania’s indeterminate sentencing scheme, which was within the statutory maximum but exceeded the aggravated range of the Sentencing Guidelines, violates the Sixth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution in light of the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296, 124 S.Ct. 2531, 159 L.Ed.2d 403 (2004) because the sentencing judge relied upon conduct not admitted in petitioner’s guilty plea?

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

899 A.2d 342, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/commonwealth-v-yuhasz-pa-2006.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack