Skip to main content

Commonwealth v. Howard

Citations

  • 659 A.2d 1018
  • 442 Pa. Super. 337
  • 1995 Pa. Super. LEXIS 1507

How courts have described this case

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

  • affirming the denial of a suppression motion where the “appellant’s picture did not stand out more than the other photos and the men depicted therein all exhibited similar facial and bodily characteristics”
  • disregarding the appellant’s failure to praecipe clerk of courts for entry of appealable order, “regard[ing] as done that which ought to have been done,” and proceeding to review the appellant’s claims (citations omitted and formatting altered)
  • reaching merits of claim and holding that “we shall regard as done that which ought to have been done,” where appellant’s post-sentence motion was denied by operation of law and clerk of courts failed to enter an order and appellant filed within 30 days of denial
  • defendant’s face is not a suppressible fruit of an illegal arrest

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Brosky, Olszewski, Popovioh

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

5 cases in this archive cite this case.

Cites

9 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.