Commonwealth v. Bryant, L., Aplt (concurring)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
[J-28A&B-2012] IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA EASTERN DISTRICT COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, : : Appellee : : : v. : : : LAQUAILLE BRYANT, : : Appellant : : Nos. 619 & 620 CAP Appeal from the Judgments of Sentence entered on May 5, 2010, in the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County, Criminal Division, at Nos. CP-51-CR-0006272-2008 and CP-51-CR-0006273-2008 ARGUED: March 7, 2012 CONCURRING OPINION MR. JUSTICE SAYLOR DECIDED: May 28, 2013 I join the passages of the majority opinion captioned, Suppression of Appellant s Statement to Police and Photographs of the Victim s Children, and concur in the result relative to the balance. With regard to sufficiency review in a plea case, I support the majority s approach of focusing primarily on the plea colloquy, albeit, conceptually, I would prefer to consider the mandatory review as merely plea review in a plea case, reserving the mandatory sufficiency review for cases in which there is a guilt-phase evidentiary record. Accord Commonwealth v. Frey, 588 Pa. 326, 341, 904 A.2d 866, 875 (2006) (Saylor, J., concurring).1 1 In my concurrence in Frey, I explained: I believe that a logical corollary of the Court s decision to approve the acceptance of pleas of guilt to first-degree ( continued) (continued ) murder is the understanding that it simply may not always be possible to conduct traditional sufficiency review relative to the underlying conviction in pleas cases. Accordingly, in such cases it should be appropriate to center the obligatory review on the factual basis for the plea as developed during the course of the plea colloquy, in line with the general approach for reviewing pleas to other offenses, see generally Commonwealth v. Hines, 496 Pa. 555, 437 A.2d 1180 (1981). Traditional sufficiency review should apply, however, concerning aggravating circumstances developed on the record at the penalty hearing. Id. [J-28A&B-2012] - 2
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.
