Commonwealth v. Hanson, C., Pet. (Petitions For Allowance Of Appeal)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA EASTERN DISTRICT COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, : No. 421 EAL 2010 : Respondent : : Petition for Allowance of Appeal from the : Order of the Superior Court v. : : : CARL P. HANSON, : : Petitioner : ORDER PER CURIAM AND NOW, this 30th day of August, 2011, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is GRANTED, LIMITED to the following issues, rephrased for clarity: 1. Whether, as a matter of statutory construction, the Superior Court properly construed 42 Pa.C.S. § 9712.1(a), and specifically: (a) What is the meaning of the term control of a firearm, as used in Section 9712.1(a)? (b) Whether, under Section 9712.1(a), the Commonwealth demonstrates that a defendant was in physical possession or control of a firearm by merely proving that the firearm was visible, concealed about the person . . . or within the actor's . . . reach or in close proximity to the controlled substance? (c) What is the meaning of the term in close proximity, as used in Section 9712.1(a)? 2. Whether the Superior Court correctly determined that Section 9712.1(a) was applicable to Petitioner s case?

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.