Case Name: COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania, Petitioner v. Kathleen E. BRADDOCK, Respondent
Court: Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Jurisdiction: Pennsylvania
Decision Date: 2017-11-20
Citations: 174 A.3d 572
Docket Number: No. 309 MAL 2017
Parties: COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania, Petitioner v. Kathleen E. BRADDOCK, Respondent
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Atlantic Reporter, Third Series
Volume: 174
Pages: 572–573

Head Matter:
COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania, Petitioner v. Kathleen E. BRADDOCK, Respondent
No. 309 MAL 2017
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.
November 20, 2017

Opinion:
ORDER
PER CURIAM
AND NOW, this 20th day of November, 2017, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is GRANTED. The issue, as framed by the Commonwealth, is as follows:
Whether the Superior Court, relying on Commonwealth v. Giron, 155 A.3d 635 (Pa. Super. 2017), improperly expanded the illegal sentencing doctrine when it vacated Braddock's sentence on a non-preserved constitutional issue, holding that Birchfield v. North Dakota, — U.S. -, 136 S.Ct. 2160, 195 L.Ed.2d 560 (2016), rendered enhanced penalties under 75 Pa.C.S. § 3803-3804 illegal, even though Birchfield recognized exi gent circumstances or a search warrant can still justify increased penalties for a blood test refusal?