Legal Opinion · Dissent

Commonwealth v. O'Berg

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Decided August 16, 2005No. 92 MAP 2004Published

1DissentJustice Saylor

The majority declines to afford Appellant the benefit of the rule embodied in Commonwealth v. Hubbard, 472 Pa. 259, 372 A.2d 687 (1977), which was in effect at the time of his conviction, the imposition of sentence, the lodging of the notice of appeal, and through the initial briefing in the Superior Court. Rather than applying the prevailing rule in effect at all relevant times, the majority applies the new protocol established in Commonwealth v. Grant, 572 Pa. 48, 813 A.2d 726 (2002), implementing Grant’s express and exceptional pronouncement that its procedural dictates would be applied…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Wiggins v. Smith, WardenSupreme Court of the United States · 2003
  2. Commonwealth v. GrantSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2002
  3. Commonwealth v. HubbardSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1977
  4. Commonwealth v. MusiSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1979
  5. Commonwealth v. BlessittSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 2004

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API