Legal Opinion

Commonwealth v. Herman

Superior Court of Pennsylvania

Decided June 29, 2016No. 479 MDA 2015PublishedCited by 9 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION BY BOWES, J.:

This is a Commonwealth appeal from the trial court's order granting Appellee's motion for habeas corpus relief. Since the trial court declared some provisions of the Controlled Substance, Drug, Device and Cosmetic Act ("the Act"), 35 P.S. §§ 780-101 et seq. , unconstitutionally vague, we transfer this appeal to our Supreme Court.

*393 This case concerns a chemical compound designated PB-22. The Commonwealth charged Appellee, Joey Wayne Herman, with, inter alia, possession with intent to deliver a controlled substance (PB-22), 1 and possession of a designer drug (PB-22). 2 The…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Commonwealth v. KaretnySupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2005
  2. Commonwealth v. NoelSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2004

3Cited by9 opinions

  1. Commonwealth v. HermanSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2017
  2. Com. v. Mayfield, D.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 2019
  3. Commonwealth, Aplt. v. Herman, J.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2017
  4. Com. v. Mayfield, D.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 2019
  5. Com. v. Arnett, R.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 2023

4 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