Commonwealth, Aplt. v. Armstrong, A. (per curiam order)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
[J-71-2014] IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA EASTERN DISTRICT COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, : : Appellant : : : v. : : : ANTHONY ARMSTRONG, : : Appellee : 2 EAP 2014 Appeal from the Judgment of Superior Court entered on 7/31/13 at No. 505 EDA 2012 affirming the judgment of sentence entered on 1/27/12 in the Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County, Criminal Division at Nos. CP-51-CR0006396-2009 and CP-51-CR-00096922009 ARGUED: September 9, 2014 ORDER PER CURIAM AND NOW, this 30th day of December, 2014, the Order of the Superior Court is AFFIRMED based on the reasoning set forth in its opinion addressing the issue on which this Court granted allowance of appeal, namely, “Does 42 Pa.C.S.A. Section 9714(a)(2) require prior sentencing as a second strike offender to invoke the third-strike sentencing provision?” Commonwealth v. Armstrong, 83 A.3d 411 (Pa. 2014); see Commonwealth v. Armstrong, 74 A.3d 228, 239-42 (Pa. Super. 2013). We express no opinion concerning the Superior Court’s treatment of any other issue. Former Justice McCaffery did not participate in the decision of this case. Mr. Chief Justice Castille, Messrs. Justice Saylor and Baer and Madame Justice Todd join the per curiam affirmance based on the intermediate court’s analysis. Mr. Justice Eakin files a dissenting statement in which Mr. Justice Stevens joins.
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.
