Case Title: Commonwealth v. Fithian, Michael (Dissenting Statement)

Citation: 

Docket Number: 

State: pennsylvania

Court: Pennsylvania Supreme Court

Date: 2007-05-03T00:00:00Z

Document:
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA MIDDLE DISTRICT COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, Petitioner v. MICHAEL FITHIAN, Respondent : : : : : : : : : : : No. 797 MAL 2006 Petition for Allowance of Appeal from the Memorandum and Order of the Superior Court entered August 22, 2006 at No. 89 EDA 2005, affirming the Order of the Court of Common Pleas of Delaware County entered December 6, 2004 at No. 4110 of 2003. DISSENTING STATEMENT MR. JUSTICE SAYLOR FILED: May 2, 2007 I respectfully dissent, as I believe that the facts of this case are materially distinguishable from those before the Court in Commonwealth v. Nolan, 855 A.2d 834, 839 (Pa. 2004); Nolan’s footnote 7 is dictum in any event, since that case concerned the application of a prior version of Section 110; and the trial court opinion in this case, adopted by the Superior Court, contains an extensive discussion of the “occur[rence] within the same judicial district” term of Section 110. At this juncture, I offer no comment on the merits; I merely believe that the majority’s present order is likely to cause confusion, in light of the above considerations.