Skip to main content

Commonwealth v. Allen

Citations

  • 856 A.2d 1251
  • 2004 Pa. Super. 327
  • 2004 Pa. Super. LEXIS 2778

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

  • stating, the operative consideration in a merger analysis is “whether the elements of the offenses are the same or different
  • stating, the operative consideration in a merger analysis is “whether the elements of the offenses are the same or different
  • stating, the operative consideration in a merger analysis is “whether the elements of the offenses are the same or different”
  • where this Court determined that Indecent Assault and Aggravated Indecent Assault are not greater and lesser- included offenses; therefore, merger of convictions of those offenses for sentencing purposes was not appropriate
  • “The trial court did not order Appellant to file a Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) statement of matters complained of on appeal. Appellant did not file a Rule 1925(b) statement. On January 7, 2004, the trial court filed its Rule 1925(a) opinion.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Gantman, Green, Lally, Tamilia

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

4 cases in this archive cite this case.

Cites

8 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

Other cases with this 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.