Legal Opinion

Commonwealth v. Belak

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Decided June 17, 2003No. 91 WAP 2001 and 92 WAP 2001PublishedCited by 41 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION

Justice NIGRO.

Appellee/Cross-Appellant George Belak was convicted of burglary and other related offenses. Given that he had previously been convicted of burglary at least twice, Belak was subsequently sentenced, pursuant to 42 Pa.C.S. § 9714, to the mandatory minimum of twenty-five years’ imprisonment and the mandatory maximum of fifty years’ imprisonment.1 On *417appeal, the Superior Court initially affirmed Belak’s judgment of sentence, rejecting Belak’s claims that his trial counsel had been ineffective2 and that section 9714 is unconstitutional because it places the burden on the…

2Cases cited9 opinions

  1. Apprendi v. New JerseySupreme Court of the United States · 2000
  2. Commonwealth v. GrantSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2002
  3. Commonwealth v. FahySupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1999
  4. Commonwealth v. BomarSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2003
  5. Commonwealth v. WalkerSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1976

4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by41 opinions

  1. Commonwealth v. WatsonSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 2003
  2. Commonwealth v. JonesSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 2007
  3. Commonwealth v. JohnsonSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2003
  4. Commonwealth v. O'BidosSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 2004
  5. Commonwealth v. AponteSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2004

36 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API