Commonwealth v. Zortman
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
Chief Justice CASTILLE.
The issue in this appeal is whether an inoperable handgun may be considered a “firearm” for purposes of mandatory minimum sentencing under 42 Pa.C.S. § 9712.1 (“Sentences for certain drug offenses committed with firearms”). The Superior Court held that the handgun involved in this case was indeed a “firearm” for purposes of sentence enhancement pursuant to Section 9712.1. For the reasons set forth below, we affirm.
On May 24, 2006, state narcotics agents went to the Clear-field County residence of appellant and her boyfriend, Robert Prisk, who had been the subject…
2Cases cited11 opinions
- Commonwealth v. DicksonSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2007
- Commonwealth v. McCoySupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2009
- Commonwealth v. LaytonSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1973
- Commonwealth v. DiodoroSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2009
- White Deer Township v. NappSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2009
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by29 opinions
- Commonwealth v. BakerSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 2013
- Commonwealth v. HopkinsSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 2013
- Commonwealth v. TyackSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 2015
- Commonwealth v. HawkinsSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 2012
- Dorsey v. RedmanSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2014
24 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.