concluding that Shiffler did not overrule Vasquez expressly or implicitly
How later courts described this case
- concluding that Shiffler did not overrule Vasquez expressly or implicitly
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
CONCURRING AND DISSENTING STATEMENT BY
BENDER, J.
¶ 1 While I concur with the majority’s analysis as to issues C, D, and E and with the waiver of issues F, G and H, I respectfully dissent to the majority’s determination as to issues A and B. I believe that because the language of 18 Pa.C.S. § 6312(d)(2) is substantially identical to the language of 42 Pa.C.S. § 9714, issues A and B are controlled by Commonwealth v. Dickerson, 404 Pa.Super. 249 , 590 A.2d 766 (1991), aff'd, 533 Pa. 294 , 621 A.2d 990 (1993), and that, therefore, the case should be remanded for resentencing consistent with Dickerson. See also Commonwealth v. McClintic, 589 Pa. 465 , 909 A.2d 1241, 1247 (2006).