Commonwealth v. Andrews

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that a challenge to whether an appellant’s -3- J-S57012-17 criminal conduct amounted to one conspiracy or more is a fact-driven inquiry and constitutes a sufficiency claim, rather than a non-waivable illegality of the sentence issue
• noting that section 903(c) requires a factual assessment of “either the conspiratorial agreement or the relationship of the conspirators”
• stating that two distinct conspiracies existed where the defendants committed three robberies, of three different individuals, at three different buildings, over a two-day period
• requiring sentence imposed on conspiracy to commit aggravated assault be vacated
• tactical reasons explained why, although several potential problems existed with conduct of trial, counsel opted to raise single specific objection and waived others
• challenge concerning merger or double jeopardy implicates the sentences contemplated by the General Assembly for violations of the Crimes Code

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).