Massengill v. State

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 claim that a sentencing court “double counted factors already considered in the sentencing guidelines raises a substantial question”
• holding that questions concerning merger implicate the legality of a sentence, and this Court may address such issues sua sponte
• holding that questions concerning merger implicate the legality of a sentence, and this Court may address such issues sua sponte
• holding that questions concerning merger implicate the legality of a sentence, and this Court may address such issues sua sponte
• holding that questions concerning merger implicate the legality of a sentence and this Court may address such issues sua sponte
• recognizing that “[w]hether crimes merge for sentencing purposes implicates the legality of the sentence”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).