Superior Court of Pennsylvania· 6/14/1991

Commonwealth v. Murphy

Citations

592 A.2d 750
405 Pa. Super. 452
1991 Pa. Super. LEXIS 1630

How courts have described this case

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

holding Commonwealth not required to prove for application of school enhancement that defendant intended to be within one thousand feet of a school
holding Commonwealth not required to prove for application of school enhancement that defendant intended to be within one thousand feet of a school
holding Commonwealth not required to prove for application of school enhancement that defendant intended to be within one thousand feet of a school
“The trial court should have merged for sentencing purposes the crimes of possession of controlled substances and possession with intent to deliver since both charges stemmed from the same act of possession.”
“The trial court should have merged for sentencing purposes the crimes of possession of controlled substances and possession with intent to deliver since both charges stemmed from the same act of possession.”
“The trial court should have merged for sentencing purposes the crimes of possession of controlled substances and possession with intent to deliver since both charges stemmed from the same act of possession.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Rowley, Kelly, Brosky

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

13 cases in this archive cite this case.

Cites

24 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.