Commonwealth v. Everett

How courts have described this case

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

• concluding that when imposing one sentence on merged convictions, the trial court has discretion to sentence defendant on either offense
• holding the same and stating that it is within the discretion of the trial court to choose to sentence for either the lesser included offense or the greater offense
• holding the same and stating that it is within the discretion of the trial court to choose to sentence for either the lesser included offense or the greater offense
• “the merger doctrine requires that only one sentence may be imposed, but it has nothing to say about which sentence that should be”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Cited by

6 cases in this archive cite this case.

• Zimmerman v. Commonwealth Department of Transportation, Bureau of Driver Licensing
  Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania· 2000-09-20· cited 21×
• Drabic v. COM., DEPT. OF TRANSP.
  Supreme Court of Pennsylvania· 2006-09-27· cited 20×
• State v. Frazier
  Court of Appeals of Maryland· 2020-07-14· cited 13×
• Com. v. Kimmel, L.
  Superior Court of Pennsylvania· 2014-08-29
• Tolan v. State
  Court of Special Appeals of Maryland· 2019-08-28
• United States v. Zimmerman
  Third Circuit· 2003-09-30

Cites

7 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

• Commonwealth v. Anderson
  Supreme Court of Pennsylvania· 1994-10-26· cited 251×
• Commonwealth v. Boerner
  Superior Court of Pennsylvania· 1980-10-03· cited 65×
• Commonwealth Ex Rel. Shaddock v. Ashe
  Supreme Court of Pennsylvania· 1941-01-06· cited 53×
• Commonwealth v. Kozrad
  Supreme Court of Pennsylvania· 1985-10-25· cited 20×
• Commonwealth v. Sayko
  Supreme Court of Pennsylvania· 1985-02-20· cited 17×
• Commonwealth v. O'Brien
  Supreme Court of Pennsylvania· 1986-09-03· cited 16×
• Commonwealth v. Anderson
  Supreme Court of Pennsylvania· 1994-12-15· cited 14×