Legal Opinion

Commonwealth v. Gillespie

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Decided March 8, 1985No. 5PublishedCited by 9 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

BROSKY, Judge:

This is an appeal from the order of the court below denying appellant’s petition under the Post Conviction Hearing Act (PCHA).1 Although appellant states only three questions in his statement of questions presented,2 he raises *579twenty-one grounds for relief, including a claim that the sentencing court placed him twice in jeopardy by imposing a consecutive sentence for robbery together with a life sentence for murder when the murder verdict could have been predicated on the felony murder doctrine. We find that appellant has waived all but his double jeopardy claim, but find merit…

2Cases cited21 opinions

  1. Furman v. GeorgiaSupreme Court of the United States · 1972
  2. Brown v. OhioSupreme Court of the United States · 1977
  3. Johnson v. New JerseySupreme Court of the United States · 1966
  4. Linkletter v. WalkerSupreme Court of the United States · 1965
  5. United States v. JohnsonSupreme Court of the United States · 1982

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

3Cited by9 opinions

  1. Commonwealth v. GillespieSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1986
  2. Philip Meyers v. Frank D. Gillis, Superintendent the Attorney General of the State of Pennsylvania the District Attorney of Bucks CountyCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1996
  3. Commonwealth v. GreenSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1986
  4. Gurley v. City of Philadelphia (City)Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 1987
  5. Commonwealth v. Bator, Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Northumberland County1985

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