Case ID: a3d_177/html/0823-03.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania, Respondent v. David BRICKER, Petitioner
    No. 5 WAL 2016
    Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.
    January 3, 2018
   ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 3rd day of January, 2018, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is GRANTED, LIMITED TO the issue set forth below. Allocatur is DENIED as to the remaining issue. The issue, as stated by Petitioner, is:

Did the sentencing court impose a harsh, severe, and manifestly unreasonable and excessive sentence in light of the circumstances surrounding the alleged incident?

The judgment of sentence is VACATED, and the matter is REMANDED to the Superior Court for reconsideration in light of Commonwealth v. Muniz, - Pa. -, 164 A.3d 1189 (2017).