Legal Opinion · Concurrence

Commonwealth v. Love

Superior Court of Pennsylvania

Decided January 29, 1982No. 1925Published

1ConcurrenceHoffman, Judge

I agree with the majority that the Commonwealth is entitled to a remand to an enunciation for the reasons for the sentence imposed upon appellee. I write separately, however, because the double jeopardy issues surrounding the prosecutorial appeal of sentences have yet to be addressed by any court in this Commonwealth. I would hold that the procedures invoked by the Commonwealth do not violate the constitutional prohibitions against double jeopardy.1

I

This is a Commonwealth appeal from a judgment of sentence imposed upon appellee after his third conviction for robbery.2 The court below…

2Cases cited25 opinions

  1. North Carolina v. PearceSupreme Court of the United States · 1969
  2. Benton v. MarylandSupreme Court of the United States · 1969
  3. Arizona v. WashingtonSupreme Court of the United States · 1978
  4. United States v. DiFrancescoSupreme Court of the United States · 1980
  5. Ex Parte LangeSupreme Court of the United States · 1874

20 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