Legal Opinion

Commonwealth v. Zortman

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Decided July 19, 2011No. 11 WAP 2010PublishedCited by 29 opinions

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

  1. Commonwealth v. DicksonSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2007
  2. Commonwealth v. McCoySupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2009
  3. Commonwealth v. LaytonSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1973
  4. Commonwealth v. DiodoroSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2009
  5. White Deer Township v. NappSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2009

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

3Cited by29 opinions

  1. Commonwealth v. BakerSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 2013
  2. Commonwealth v. HopkinsSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 2013
  3. Commonwealth v. TyackSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 2015
  4. Commonwealth v. HawkinsSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 2012
  5. Dorsey v. RedmanSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2014

24 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