Legal Opinion
Commonwealth, Aplt. v. Shower, W.
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Decided September 28, 2016No. 30 MAP 2015; 32 MAP 2015; 34 MAP 2015PublishedCited by 64 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
JUSTICE BAER
In the three consolidated appeals presently before this Court, all of which originated in the Court of Common Pleas of York County before the same judge, the Superior Court applied its en banc decision in Commonwealth v. Hainesworth, 82 A.3d 444 (Pa. Super. 2013) (en banc), and concluded that Appellees are entitled to specific performance of their plea agreements, ie., Appellees’ sexual offender registration requirements are governed by Megan’s Law,1 which was in effect when Appellees entered their plea agreements, and not by the Sex Offender Registration and Notification…
2Cases cited17 opinions
- Santobello v. New YorkSupreme Court of the United States · 1971
- Puckett v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 2009
- Commonwealth v. WilliamsSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2003
- P.J.S. v. Pennsylvania State Ethics CommissionSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1999
- Commonwealth v. SpenceSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1993
12 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by64 opinions
- Commonwealth, Aplt v. Dimatteo, P.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2018
- Commonwealth v. Perfetto, M., Aplt.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2019
- Commonwealth v. FernandezSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 2018
- Commonwealth v. LippincottSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 2019
- Commonwealth v. WoodSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 2019
59 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.