Legal Opinion

Commonwealth v. Swavely

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Decided February 23, 1989No. 354PublishedCited by 17 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

KELLY, Judge:

We are called upon, in this appeal, to determine whether the imposition of separate consecutive sentences for delivery of two different prohibited narcotics in a single plastic vial and in a single sale violated the double jeopardy proscription against multiple punishments for a single offense, and whether the imposition of separate consecutive sentences violated Pennsylvania’s merger doctrine. Upon careful review of the record and the applicable authority, we find neither the double jeopardy proscription nor the Pennsylvania merger doctrine were violated. Accordingly, we affirm…

2Cases cited24 opinions

  1. Blockburger v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1931
  2. North Carolina v. PearceSupreme Court of the United States · 1969
  3. Missouri v. HunterSupreme Court of the United States · 1983
  4. Commonwealth v. PierceSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1987
  5. Whalen v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1980

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

3Cited by17 opinions

  1. United States v. Kevin AbbottCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 2014
  2. United States v. Roger HendersonCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 2016
  3. Commonwealth v. ThomasSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1990
  4. Gurpreet Singh v. Attorney General United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 2016
  5. Commonwealth v. PerrusoCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 1998

12 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