From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Commonwealth v. Muniz

SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA MIDDLE DISTRICT
Apr 22, 2016
135 A.3d 178 (Pa. 2016)

Opinion

No. 684 MAL 2015.

04-22-2016

COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania, Respondent v. Jose M. MUNIZ, Petitioner.


ORDER

AND NOW, this 22nd day of April, 2016, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is GRANTED. The issues, as stated by petitioner, are:

1) Does applying [42 Pa.C.S. § 9799.14 ] retroactively violate the Federal Constitution?

2) Does applying [42 Pa.C.S. § 9799.14 ] retroactively violate the Pennsylvania Constitution?

The Prothonotary is directed to schedule briefing and argument in this matter together with the following matters presenting related issues: Commonwealth v. Reed, 557 WAL 2014 and Commonwealth v. Gilbert, 181 MAL 2015.


Summaries of

Commonwealth v. Muniz

SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA MIDDLE DISTRICT
Apr 22, 2016
135 A.3d 178 (Pa. 2016)
Case details for

Commonwealth v. Muniz

Case Details

Full title:COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, Respondent v. JOSE M. MUNIZ, Petitioner

Court:SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA MIDDLE DISTRICT

Date published: Apr 22, 2016

Citations

135 A.3d 178 (Pa. 2016)

Citing Cases

Commonwealth v. Ortiz

Ortiz raises two issue on appeal: 1. Did PCRA counsel and the trial court error/ where finding that 42 pa.…

Commonwealth v. Ortiz

Ortiz raises two issue on appeal: 1. Did PCRA counsel and the trial court error/ where finding that 42 pa.…