Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Commonwealth v. Melnyczenko

Superior Court of Pennsylvania

Decided December 7, 1992No. 833Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in partBrosky, Judge

I disagree with the decision of the majority to affirm the judgment of sentence with respect to appellant’s conviction for attempted burglary and loitering and prowling in the night time. My review of the record and the applicable case law *369convinces me that insufficient evidence was presented at trial to sustain appellant’s convictions for attempted burglary and loitering and prowling in the night time.

This appeal is taken from the judgment of sentence entered after a jury convicted appellant of attempted burglary (18 Pa.C.S.A. § 901(a)), possessing instruments of crime (18 Pa. C.S.A. § 907)…

2Cases cited28 opinions

  1. Commonwealth v. CrowleySupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1983
  2. Commonwealth v. ClintonSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1958
  3. Commonwealth v. StanleySupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1973
  4. Commonwealth v. EaganSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1899
  5. Commonwealth v. WilliamsSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1990

23 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