Legal Opinion

Commonwealth v. Sayko

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Decided February 20, 1985No. 1542PublishedCited by 17 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

BROSKY, Judge:

This is an appeal from the order denying appellant’s motion to vacate sentence. Appellant contends that the sentence he received on the charge of corruption of minors 1 was illegal because that offense had merged with the crimes of indecent assault 2 and indecent exposure 3 for which he was given consecutive sentences. We agree with appellant in part and, for the reasons that follow herein, vacate the sentence for indecent exposure and affirm the sentences for indecent assault and for corruption of minors, but with credit given for the time served on the indecent exposure…

2Cases cited13 opinions

  1. Blockburger v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1931
  2. Commonwealth v. SparrowSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1977
  3. Commonwealth v. NorrisSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1982
  4. Commonwealth v. MirandaSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1982
  5. Commonwealth v. BoernerSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1980

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

3Cited by17 opinions

  1. Commonwealth v. WilliamsSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1985
  2. Commonwealth v. CampbellSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1986
  3. Commonwealth v. AdamsSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1986
  4. Commonwealth v. FullerSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1990
  5. Commonwealth v. SaykoSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1986

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