Legal Opinion
Commonwealth v. Simmer
Superior Court of Pennsylvania
Decided December 23, 2002PublishedCited by 13 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
MUSMANNO, J.:
¶ 1 Appellants Justin Simmer (“Simmer”) and Arthur Shaffer (“Shaffer”) appeal from the judgments of sentence imposed after they each were convicted of driving under the influence (“DUI”). 1 We affirm.
¶ 2 The trial court set forth the following pertinent facts of the case:
[Shaffer] was charged with DUI, Maximum Speed Limits and General Lighting Requirements, 2 and on October 3, 2000, entered the Fast Track ARD Program and pleaded guilty to the summaries. After Shaffer’s ARD was revoked on April 17, 2001, his case was listed for trial on the DUI charge. [Simmer] was charged with…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Commonwealth v. BeattySupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1983
- Commonwealth v. FailorSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2001
- Commonwealth v. PeiferSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1999
- Commonwealth v. SzebinSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 2001
- Brooks v. Workers' Compensation Appeal Board (Brockway Glass)Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 2001
3Cited by13 opinions
- Commonwealth v. PerfettoSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 2017
- Commonwealth v. WegleySupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2003
- Commonwealth v. GimbaraSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 2003
- Commonwealth v. ReidSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 2012
- Commonwealth v. DawsonSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 2014
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.