explaining that, in Commonwealth v. Wharton, 542 Pa. 83, 665 A.2d 458 (1995), this Court held “that the determining factor in whether convictions could be considered prior criminal convictions under Section 9711(e)(1) was whether the defendant had a particular conviction at the time of the sentencing hearing”
How later courts described this case
- explaining that, in Commonwealth v. Wharton, 542 Pa. 83, 665 A.2d 458 (1995), this Court held “that the determining factor in whether convictions could be considered prior criminal convictions under Section 9711(e)(1) was whether the defendant had a particular conviction at the time of the sentencing hearing”
- affirming finding that Miranda waiver was knowing, intelligent, and voluntary, despite defendant’s psychotic conditions, where defendant presented no evidence at suppression hearing regarding his mental health, and police testified that defendant said he was in full control of his faculties when he gave his statement
- noting that administrative interpretations are entitled to deference as long as they are consistent with legislative intent
- stating that repeated use of a deadly weapon upon vital parts of victim’s body demonstrates a specific intent to kill beyond a reasonable doubt
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
Justice EAKIN,
concurring.
I join the Majority Opinion and I join the concurring portion of Mr. Justice Castille’s Concurring and Dissenting Opinion.