Legal Opinion

Commonwealth v. Menezes

Superior Court of Pennsylvania

Decided March 8, 2005PublishedCited by 52 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION BY

GANTMAN, J.:

¶ 1 Appellant, Carlos Menezes, asks us to determine whether he is entitled to credit for the 18 hours he served in pre-arraignment custody on the charge of driving under the influence (“DUI”). 1 Specifically, Appellant challenges as illegal his sentence of 48 consecutive hours’ imprisonment under the mandatory sentencing provision in Section 8781(e). We hold the court properly sentenced Appellant to 48 consecutive hours’ imprisonment and correctly determined Appellant was not entitled to credit for the 18 hours he served in pre-arraignment custody. Accordingly, we affirm.

2Cases cited11 opinions

  1. Commonwealth v. BeckSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 2004
  2. Commonwealth v. HockenberrySuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1997
  3. Commonwealth v. HollawellSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1992
  4. Commonwealth v. PackerSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2002
  5. Commonwealth v. HendersonSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1995

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

3Cited by52 opinions

  1. Commonwealth v. JohnsonSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 2009
  2. Commonwealth v. BurnsSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 2009
  3. Commonwealth v. WilliamsSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 2015
  4. Commonwealth v. NealSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 2016
  5. Commonwealth v. BeaufortSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 2015

47 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