Commonwealth v. Love
Superior Court of Pennsylvania
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
- North Carolina v. PearceSupreme Court of the United States · 1969
- Benton v. MarylandSupreme Court of the United States · 1969
- Arizona v. WashingtonSupreme Court of the United States · 1978
- United States v. DiFrancescoSupreme Court of the United States · 1980
- Ex Parte LangeSupreme Court of the United States · 1874
20 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.