Commonwealth v. Bizzel
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
1Concurrence
CONCURRING OPINION BY
BOWES, J.:
In light of this Court’s decisions in Commonwealth v. Newman, 99 A.3d 86 (Pa.Super.2014) (en banc), and Commonwealth v. Valentine, 2014 PA Super 220, 101 A.3d 801, I am constrained to concur with the learned majority’s severability analysis. I write further to express my disagreement with aspects of those decisions, especially in light of those Courts’ discussions of Commonwealth v. Watley, 81 A.3d 108 (Pa.Super.2013) (en banc), a decision I authored.1 In my view, those provisions of *107Pennsylvania mandatory minimum stat-. utes affected by Alleyne v. United…
2Cases cited34 opinions
- Apprendi v. New JerseySupreme Court of the United States · 2000
- United States v. BookerSupreme Court of the United States · 2004
- Blakely v. WashingtonSupreme Court of the United States · 2004
- Alleyne v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 2013
- United States v. CottonSupreme Court of the United States · 2002
29 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.