Legal Opinion

Commonwealth v. Howard

Superior Court of Pennsylvania

Decided May 30, 1995PublishedCited by 17 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

BROSKY, Judge.

This is an appeal from the judgment of sentence made final by operation of law upon the trial court’s failure to decide appellant’s post-sentencing motion within one hundred and twenty days. The sole issue presented for our review is whether the trial court erred in refusing to suppress the identification and physical evidence seized from appellant. For the reasons set forth below, we affirm.

Before addressing this issue, we will briefly recount the pertinent facts of this case. *1020Michael Thorpe, a driver/deliveryman for the Philadelphia Daily News, was delivering newspapers on the…

2Cases cited9 opinions

  1. United States v. CrewsSupreme Court of the United States · 1980
  2. New York v. HarrisSupreme Court of the United States · 1990
  3. Commonwealth v. GarvinSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1972
  4. Commonwealth v. CarterSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1994
  5. Commonwealth v. MayhueSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1994

4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by17 opinions

  1. Commonwealth v. BoozeSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 2008
  2. Commonwealth v. CarterSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 2015
  3. Commonwealth v. DouglassSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1997
  4. Commonwealth v. PetersonSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 2011
  5. Commonwealth v. SantiagoSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 2017

12 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