Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Commonwealth v. Wallace

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Decided March 29, 2005No. 7 EAP 2004Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in partJustice Saylor

For the reasons set forth by Mr. Justice Baer, I agree with him that the Commonwealth’s challenge to the Superior Court’s directive to the trial court to resentence Appellant in *251accordance with the terms of his original plea is waived by virtue of its failure to file a petition for allowance of appeal relative to such ruling. I would only add that there are mixed policy arguments to be made concerning whether a requirement to file a petition for allowance of appeal should be interposed as a prerequisite to issue preservation, which have not yet been addressed by this Court.1 Nevertheless,…

2Cases cited7 opinions

  1. Commonwealth v. SierraSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 2000
  2. Commonwealth v. BrownSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1999
  3. Commonwealth v. FusselmanSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 2004
  4. Commonwealth v. DiNicolaSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2005
  5. Commonwealth v. GochenaurSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1984

2 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