Legal Opinion

Commonwealth v. Dotzman

Superior Court of Pennsylvania

Decided April 5, 1991No. 1869-1872 Philadelphia 1990PublishedCited by 7 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

CAVANAUGH, Judge:

The principal issue in this case is whether the deadly weapon enhancement provisions set forth at 204 Pa.Code § 303.4 are unconstitutional as violative of the prohibition against double jeopardy. 1 The court below, in imposing sentence on Edward Dotzman, the appellee, did not apply § 303.4 to the guideline sentence range for robbery in the first degree, where the offenses were committed at knife-point. 2 The Commonwealth’s petition to modify the sentence was denied and it has appealed to this court.

Before reaching the main issue we must consider appellee’s contention that we…

2Cases cited16 opinions

  1. North Carolina v. PearceSupreme Court of the United States · 1969
  2. Benton v. MarylandSupreme Court of the United States · 1969
  3. Grady v. CorbinSupreme Court of the United States · 1990
  4. Commonwealth v. TuladzieckiSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1987
  5. Commonwealth v. DardenSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1987

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

3Cited by7 opinions

  1. Commonwealth v. JonesSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1994
  2. Commonwealth v. BowenSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1992
  3. Commonwealth v. BerrenaSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1992
  4. Commonwealth v. BrownSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1992
  5. Commonwealth v. ReadingSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1992

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