Commonwealth v. Line
Superior Court of Pennsylvania
1Dissent
DISSENTING OPINION BY
BENDER, J.:
¶ 1 Appellant was sentenced to a life sentence imder the provisions of 42 Pa. C.S. § 9714. The Majority contends Appellant’s prior convictions was the sole factor that caused Appellant to be eligible for a life sentence, and that therefore the imposition of that term of imprisonment did *39not violate Appellant’s constitutional rights as recognized in Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000), and Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296, 124 S.Ct. 2531, 159 L.Ed.2d 403 (2004). I respectfully dissent.
¶ 2 As the Majority acknowledges,…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Apprendi v. New JerseySupreme Court of the United States · 2000
- Blakely v. WashingtonSupreme Court of the United States · 2004
- Cunningham v. CaliforniaSupreme Court of the United States · 2007
- Commonwealth v. WallsSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2007
- Borough of Pottstown v. Pennsylvania Municipal Retirement BoardSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1998
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.