Case ID: pa_605/html/0467-01.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

991 A.2d 884
    COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania, Petitioner v. V.A.M., Respondent.
    Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.
    March 31, 2010.
   ORDER

PER CURIAM.

AND NOW, this 31st day of March 2010, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is GRANTED. The issue, as stated by the Petitioner, is:

Did Superior Court err in a matter of first impression where a divided panel in a published opinion: 1) reversed the Common Pleas Court and ordered that [Respondent’s] criminal record for rape, involuntary deviate sexual intercourse, conspiracy, and related charges be destroyed; 2) denied that the Common Pleas Court had applied the legal standard set forth in its Rule 1925(a) opinion; and 3) ordered expungement on the extraordinary rationale that it did not know whether the Common Pleas Court was aware of the evidence of record?