Case Name: COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania, Petitioner v. V.A.M., Respondent
Court: Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Jurisdiction: Pennsylvania
Decision Date: 2010-03-31
Citations: 605 Pa. 467
Docket Number: No. 527 EAL 2009
Parties: COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania, Petitioner v. V.A.M., Respondent.
Judges: 
Reporter: Pennsylvania State Reports
Volume: 605
Pages: 467–467

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

Opinion:
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?