Supreme Court of Pennsylvania· 3/26/2001

Commonwealth v. Andrews

Citations

768 A.2d 309
564 Pa. 321
2001 Pa. LEXIS 608

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).

Judges: Flaherty, Zappala, Cappy, Castille, Nigro, Newman, Saylor

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

32 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Cites

39 cases in this archive are cited by this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

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.