Supreme Court of Pennsylvania· 11/18/2015
Commonwealth, Aplt. v. Rose, S.
Citations
- 127 A.3d 794
- 633 Pa. 659
- 2015 Pa. LEXIS 2663
- 2015 WL 7283338
How courts have described this case
Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.
- holding that an ex post facto law is, inter alia, one that inflicts greater punishment than the law annexed to the crime when committed.
- holding “the imposition of a more severe sentence based on a statute that was amended after the act was committed, but prior to the result of that act, violates the ex post facto prohibition”
- holding “imposition of a sentence in excess of that 5 On October 26, 2018, Culbert filed both a notice of appeal and concise statement of errors complained of on appeal pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b
- stating penal law is ex post facto if (1) it is applied to events occurring before its enactment and (2
- “The ex post facto prohibition is concerned with legislative acts, as opposed to judicial decisions.” (citing Rogers v. Tennessee, 532 U.S. 451 (2001)
- “imposition of a more severe sentence based on a statute that was amended after the act was committed . . . violates the ex post facto prohibition”
Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).
Judges: Saylor, Eakin, Baer, Todd, Stevens
Read full opinion on CourtListenerCited by
7 cases in this archive cite this case.
- Commonwealth v. Muniz, J., Aplt.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania· 2017-07-19· cited 899×
- Com. v. Renninger, C.Superior Court of Pennsylvania· 2022-01-03· cited 25×
- Com. v. Merced, A.Superior Court of Pennsylvania· 2024-01-22· cited 24×
- Commonwealth v. KizakSuperior Court of Pennsylvania· 2016-09-14· cited 14×
- Com. v. Martz, D.Superior Court of Pennsylvania· 2020-04-28· cited 4×
- Com. v. Santana, D.Superior Court of Pennsylvania· 2020-10-20· cited 1×
- T. Adams v. PSPCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania· 2021-06-14
Cites
31 cases in this archive are cited by this case; the 20 most cited are listed.
- Alleyne v. United StatesSupreme Court· 2013-06-17· cited 5,868×
- Weaver v. GrahamSupreme Court· 1981-02-24· cited 2,482×
- Collins v. YoungbloodSupreme Court· 1990-06-21· cited 1,864×
- Calder v. BullSupreme Court· 1798-08-17· cited 1,860×
- Bouie v. City of ColumbiaSupreme Court· 1964-06-22· cited 1,779×
- Dobbert v. FloridaSupreme Court· 1977-06-17· cited 1,651×
- Miller v. FloridaSupreme Court· 1987-06-09· cited 1,316×
- California Department of Corrections v. MoralesSupreme Court· 1995-04-25· cited 1,142×
- Beazell v. OhioSupreme Court· 1925-11-23· cited 945×
- Peugh v. United StatesSupreme Court· 2013-06-10· cited 771×
- Rogers v. TennesseeSupreme Court· 2001-05-14· cited 616×
- Garner v. JonesSupreme Court· 2000-04-18· cited 550×
- Carmell v. TexasSupreme Court· 2000-05-01· cited 525×
- De Veau v. BraistedSupreme Court· 1960-06-06· cited 494×
- Commonwealth v. DunphySuperior Court of Pennsylvania· 2011-05-06· cited 357×
- Commonwealth v. DrumSupreme Court of Pennsylvania· 1868-07-01· cited 323×
- Commonwealth v. FisherSupreme Court of Pennsylvania· 2013-10-30· cited 144×
- Commonwealth v. YoungSupreme Court of Pennsylvania· 1993-11-05· cited 105×
- Commonwealth v. SantosSupreme Court of Pennsylvania· 2005-06-20· cited 105×
- Commonwealth v. WilliamsSupreme Court of Pennsylvania· 2009-10-02· cited 93×
Other cases named Commonwealth, Aplt. v. Rose, S.
3 other CourtListener records share this case name.
Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.