Superior Court of Pennsylvania· 7/19/2013

Commonwealth v. Baker

Citations

72 A.3d 652
2013 Pa. Super. 200
2013 WL 3788795
2013 Pa. Super. LEXIS 1667

How courts have described this case

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

concluding that expe t testimony was unnecessary because of the other evidence in the case. including baggies, ove $2,300 in cash recovered with the drugs, and pre-recorded buy money
concluding that because there was nothing said on the record was an accurate description of the PCRA rights the defendant was -8- J-S39010-22 forfeiting, there was no express and voluntary waiver of his right to PCRA review
holding a claim that a failure to account for rehabilitative needs resulted in an excessive sentence raises a substantial question
concluding a challenge that the trial court did not consider rehabilitative needs raises a substantial question
concluding a challenge that the trial court did not consider rehabilitative needs raises a substantial question
finding that appellant’s claim that the sentencing court unduly weighted the nature and circumstances of the crime presented a substantial question

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Donohue, Musmanno, Olson

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

20 cases in this archive cite this case.

Cites

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

Other cases named Commonwealth v. Baker

120 other CourtListener records share this case name; the 50 most cited are listed.

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.